LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 30, 1999

• 1548

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(b), we shall begin our consideration of official language policies and programs. Pursuant to Standing Order 81(14) and the order of reference dated November 17, 1999, the committee shall consider the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.

Ms. Dyane Adam, we invite you to take your place at the table with your colleagues.

Ms. Adam was invited by the committee to answer your questions.

First of all I would like to welcome you to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. You are our first witness. I think our proceedings will start on a pleasant and informative note.

Perhaps you could start by introducing the colleagues accompanying you.

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages): I'm accompanied by Mr. Richard Tardif, director of our legal services, Mr. Gérard Finn, policy director and Mr. Michel Robichaud, director of investigations.

I am flattered, ladies and gentlemen, to be your first witness this year. I'm also happy to be appearing for the first time as Commissioner of Official Languages. You can be assured of my utmost co-operation for the next seven years. I do not know whether you will be here for that entire period but I intend to be. It will probably be, as I have already mentioned, the position that I will have occupied for the longest period of time during my career.

• 1550

Your committee allows members of the Senate and the House of Commons to follow and encourage the enforcement of the Act, in particular by examining reports by the Commissioner, the Treasury Board president and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

There is nothing better than the informed and persistent questions of members of this committee to sensitize organizations showing poor performance in fulfilling their linguistic obligations, whether those obligations concern the active offer of bilingual service or efforts to promote the development of francophone and anglophone minorities. These communities regard the leadership provided by your committee as a clear indication of Parliament's commitment to the defence and promotion of linguistic duality which is at the heart of our collective will to live together.

Since the Commissioner's report is the only one providing recommendations, this committee may consider it timely this year to examine some of the key issues raised in our 1998 Annual Report and more recently in the political arena. It might wish to enquire about the intentions of central agencies with respect to the future of these major issues.

Before delving into these issues, I would like to briefly outline my approach to my mandate.

[English]

You will not be surprised to hear that my approach to the major issues involving implementation of the act is greatly influenced by my professional background. As a professional psychologist specializing in clinical psychology, my scientific approach is basically always the same: carefully analyse the situation, arrive at the diagnosis, define and describe the options, and then develop a treatment plan. In this position, I am not looking to uncover more and more problems, but rather to come up with more and more solutions.

What does that mean in practical terms for official languages? It means our investigations will continue to be rigorous and complete. We will continue to see complaints as significant indicators, but they will not be our only guide.

The commissioner, as a good psychologist, must anticipate crises, and prevent as well as treat. She must treat the illness, not just cover up or alleviate the symptoms. Drastic remedies might even be required in rare cases, and I will not hesitate to take such action.

The act provides the commissioner with a whole range of tools to carry out her work. I intend to use them with both moderation and tenacity. I know such an approach will be consistent with the wishes of members of this committee to ensure the full implementation of Canadians' linguistic rights. It is only through an active approach, and perhaps even one involving interventions, that the commissioner can fully execute the mandate set out in the act—namely, to take all actions and measures within the authority of its commissioner with a view to ensuring recognition of the status of each of the official languages.

[Translation]

A few moments ago, I noted the interest your committee has expressed in certain "hot" issues relating to official languages. It is no mere coincidence that these issues raise horizontal problems, which go beyond the scope of any single federal organization, and even involve different levels of government. For over a decade, we have witnessed an unprecedented devolution of federal powers to provincial and private organizations.

An unpublished study was prepared in November, 1998, by public administration expert Donald Savoie, at the request of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office. This study proposed innovative solutions to allow federal departments and agencies to make a concerted contribution to the growth of francophone communities outside Quebec. We do not know what the follow-up will be.

• 1555

The Commissioner of Official Languages also produced in 1998, a study on the effects of government transformations on official languages programs in Canada, which concluded that it is time to change course, setting out five guiding principles for the protection of official languages in this context.

The Fontaine task force, established the same year by the government in response to the Commissioner's report, issued its own report and recommendations in January, 1999.

More recently, on November 16, your colleague, Senator Jean- Maurice Simard, published a constructive study on ensuring the development of official languages communities.

All four reports, appearing in a 20-month period, suggest a depressing diagnosis. But as far as I know, if the government through the President of the Treasury Board, has accepted the conclusions of the Fontaine report, it did not hasten to adjust its course. We believe that the government will not formally respond to these reports. Will this be an implicitly meaningful silence?

This withdrawal by silence is the stumbling block to the court remedy sought by the Commissioner of Official Languages in relation to the Contraventions Act. It also raises fundamental questions about the scope and implementation of Part VII of the Act.

In short, by supporting the action by the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario before the Federal Court, we would like to compel the Department of Justice to consult the official language minority in Ottawa, before concluding an agreement, in order to evaluate the impact of any amendment to the Contraventions Act on the linguistic rights of Franco-Ontarians.

In other words, we would like to see to it that, in the towns and cities of Ontario, all proceedings relating to violations of federal statutes are conducted in accordance with citizens' linguistic rights.

[English]

In a similar vein, I feel compelled to emphasize the profound concern of the Franco-Ontarian community, which I fully share, over the inclusion of future linguistic provisions in the labour market development agreement currently being negotiated. Ontario's francophone community accounts for nearly half of all francophones outside Quebec.

In the past, the federal government and the Government of Ontario have worked hand in hand to ensure and expand French-language services in this province. So where is the problem? An official silence is a breeding ground for rumour. I would therefore invite the federal government to state that the necessary linguistic provisions will indeed be included in the agreement.

I would also like to inform you that I recently appeared before your colleagues at the Standing Committee on Transport and the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in the context of their complementary studies on the future of the airline industry in Canada. I have also asked that the clerk of your committee be provided with copies of that presentation for those of you wishing to read it. Permit me today, however, to summarize each of our concerns in this regard.

You will remember that for several years now we have reproached Air Canada for its less than enthusiastic regard for passengers' linguistic rights, especially in the area of services provided by its regional carriers, which are in fact wholly owned Air Canada subsidiaries. We applied for a referral to the Federal Court on this matter, as well as on applications regarding the ground services offered by Air Canada at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson Airport and at Halifax International Airport.

• 1600

As the government was undertaking a thorough review of the structure of the air transport industry, we recommended that it ensure that the Official Languages Act continue to apply in its entirety to Air Canada, regardless of its new structure, or to a future dominant carrier. We would like to ensure that Air Canada's regional carriers and other subsidiaries are subject to part IV, communication with and services to the public, part IX, with respect to the Commissioner of Official Languages, and part X, which involves court remedy in this act.

In our opinion, such provisions would simply recognize Air Canada's symbolic and real importance to our national identity. In view of the current market conditions in the air transport industry, the federal government has the unique opportunity to take historic action and accord linguistic duality its rightful place.

Our objective is clear. Canadians must, in keeping with the Official Languages Act and regulations, have access to air transport in the official language of their choice where there is a significant demand.

[Translation]

At the end of August this year, I released two studies on linguistic duality and the Internet, which are truly of the broad scope likely to interest the Standing Joint Committee.

The first study, The Government of Canada and French on the Internet, highlights the urgent need for the federal government to take specific action to increase French-language content on the Internet. The study's 12 recommendations are intended to accelerate the development of, and improved access to, French-language content on this medium by means of translation, digitization, and free access to linguistic tools and data banks.

The second study, Use of the Internet by Federal Institutions, follows up on a study published in 1996. While some progress has been made in respecting linguistic obligations, problems persist. In particular, we note the occasional failure to disseminate information simultaneously in both languages and the poor quality of French found on some federal department and agency sites.

When the two studies were made public, we asked the government to provide answers to our recommendations by December 1, that is tomorrow.

Finally, in this brief review of official languages "hot topics", I must mention my office's launch, earlier this fall, of a major study on the use of French in the world of performance sport. This study is intended to determine whether the training environments subsidized by Sport Canada, and in particular publicly-funded national sports centres, allow athletes to pursue their goals in the official language of their choice.

Work is proceeding well and we hope to present our results and recommendations early next summer, and perhaps even before that.

[English]

I believe there were some questions regarding the budget, so I would like to briefly mention that the amount of about $446,000 listed in the 1999-2000 supplementary estimates A for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is carried forward from the 1998-99 fiscal year. I believe there was some question from your committee concerning that.

For a few years now, departments have been allowed to carry forward as required—and there's the following quote—“in excess of actual expenditures during the fiscal period in question”. This amount, though, is limited to 5% of the department's operating budget for the fiscal period.

If you have any other questions concerning the budget, I'll gladly answer them during the question period.

• 1605

In conclusion, I would like to mention that I recently wrote to the Speaker of the Senate as well as to the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the two co-chairs of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages to inform them that our annual report will, from now on, cover the fiscal year rather than the calendar year. This is in keeping with the practice of most other federal departments and agencies.

I am also considering major changes to the presentation and content of this report to make it a more concise tool that better meets the needs of parliamentarians and other readers. In particular, I will seek not only to avoid overlap between the commissioner's report and those of the Treasury Board president and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but also to provide more relevant information about our key activities and our mandate.

We are making progress toward this new concept, and we hope, at the right time, to consult you, the members of this committee, either as individuals or as a sub-group, as to the change of this direction.

[Translation]

In conclusion, the reasons why you wished to meet me are clear. It is very important that English and French, the two languages formally granted equal status in our Constitution, be not only our principal means of cultural expression, but equally reflect our common heritage and a not unimportant human currency which provides a unique access to the international community.

But times are changing. The vitality of our official language minority communities is becoming increasingly fragile. They are therefore turning to the federal government, whose very policy it is to foster their growth and development. Without the active vigilance of the committee, the transformations underway in the federal government could strengthen the two solitudes rather than create linguistic ties from sea to sea.

Thank you for your attention. I'd be pleased to answer your questions or comments.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much, Ms. Adam. First of all, before we begin our questions, I would like to note the presence of Senator Gauthier and extend our welcome to him. Unfortunately, Senator Gauthier was absent from our meetings for a certain time.

Our first questioner will be Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill, please.

[English]

[Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): —

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Chair, a point of order. I'm sorry, Mr. Hill, but we're having a problem with the interpretation.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Just one moment, Mr. Hill. We'll get the translation working.

Mr. Grant Hill: Not a good start for the committee on official languages.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Would you just make a few noises to see if they can hear you?

I apologize for this. This is the kind of problem we've had in every single committee I've been in.

A voice: Sing a song.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Please go ahead, Mr. Hill.

• 1610

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for your presentation. As a scientist, you have spoken of your scientific training. My question is on the goals and the way you measure your goals. What do you look forward to in terms of your mandate in the committee? What sorts of goals have you, and how will you measure those goals?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I guess the advantage I have is that I have seven years within that mandate, which is a period that is sufficiently long to see changes. When we are speaking of official languages, really, the objective is that there is definite improvement in the level of services that Canadians receive in both languages—those services being provided by offices other than my own. The goals as defined in the Official Languages Act are to progress toward the status of equality of French and English. So for me, these are the goals.

This morning I was speaking to a group of deputy ministers responsible for the official languages program, and I mentioned to them that they are the ones who have to do most of the work and provide the services, etc. We can have all kinds of laws and policies, but at the end of the day, what will make the difference are the people who implement them—their attitudes, the value systems they carry forward, how they behave, how they respond to the public, and whether the public is satisfied.

So I will spend a lot of time working with those people who are in charge of implementing the act, making sure they fully understand what their obligations and responsibilities are, and the different ways they can achieve these responsibilities. I believe in that sense my professional background will definitely help me.

Mr. Grant Hill: All of the problems that are noted in your report, every one of them, if I understand them, reflect upon a problem with the French language in certain areas—every single one. You've talked about this being the two languages.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the minority language problem in Canada in total is that the French language is relatively smaller than the English language? Maybe you could answer this in a different way. How many complaints do you get relating to French concerns versus English concerns? Give me a balance on those, if you can.

Ms. Dyane Adam: It varies by region and by province. If you are in Quebec, we do have a good proportion of them that are concerning the English minority. But I would say overall, it would be 80% French, 20% English. But this is different in Quebec.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Thank you for your presentation, Commissioner, and I wish you every success in your duties. I know that you are considered to be a bit of a troublemaker. I hope that you will continue to have this reputation in your new position.

• 1615

On Monday the Divisional Court of Ontario handed down a very important decision to the effect that the existence of a French- language hospital was a constitutional requirement and necessary for the development of the francophone community in Ontario. It also noted that the presence of a francophone hospital was essential to stem assimilation.

As I see it, this judgment clearly establishes the importance of linguistic duality in relation to institutional bilingualism. I've been a member of this committee for a number of years and whatever political party they may belong to, the ministers who are responsible, including the present minister, constantly boast about the progress of bilingualism in Canada as well as immersion classes. Their vision of Canada is an unrelenting paean to bilingualism.

Well, this decision takes the opposite stance. It says that of course there are bilingual individuals, so much the better, but that this does not allow for the survival of minorities. Education in a language is not enough, there is also the aspect of social services and lifestyle. I think that Senator Simard may have been reflecting the philosophy underlying this decision—perhaps he was being a visionary when he said in his report:

Linguistic duality is not a synonym for individual bilingualism. Linguistic duality means that a French-language or English-language citizen may see himself in his country and recognize himself in its symbols and rituals, be served and educated as well as live and work in his language. The two are not to be confused.

He went so far as to note that bilingualism has often been used as a pretext—and therefore was a serious obstacle—to oppose the creation of French-language or Acadian institutions. He noted that it had long been used to legitimize the refusal to set up homogeneous francophone schools, community colleges and a whole range of institutions. This also applies to hospitals. The argument used to justify this practice was that a bilingual institution was the ideal way of producing bilingual individuals and a bilingual society. As he pointed out, it has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that immersion schools and shared institutions are in fact agents of assimilation.

This is a serious shortcoming but it is in keeping with observations made in the census.

In relation to this decision as well as the statement you made on your appointment, namely:

Although linguistic duality is recognized as a determining principle in Canada, it strikes me as a citizen that it has become a theoretical notion.

that I am asking my question, through the chair, who has asked us to make a point of speaking through the chair. You can see I am very obedient.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I don't know whether the word obedient is the appropriate one.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It was a suggestion.

For the benefit of committee members, can you tell us whether you think there is a difference between bilingualism as it is practised in Canada and a policy of linguistic duality?

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

Ms. Dyane Adam: That's a good question. As I see it, the policy of linguistic duality in Canada, as defined in the Act, reflects more about the values of a society and recognizes the equal status of the two languages in the country. It also contains principles likely to favour the full development of official languages communities, particularly the minority ones. The Act has set out how these different principles and intentions of the legislator can be made concrete, at least in federal institutions.

• 1620

Language management, that is, the way in which the communities express their Frenchness or Englishness, so to speak, in their daily life, varies greatly in different parts of the country. Let me use my own experience. As a francophone born here in Ontario, I have lived in the north and in the eastern part of the province, where I was raised and studied, and more recently in the south. The ability to live one's life as a francophone, the possibilities for education and living in French, such as shopping, for example, vary a great deal from one part of Ontario to another.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Ms. Adam, I apologize for interrupting you, but I have to say that since the question was too long, I must ask you to be brief in your answer. I'll give you a bit more time than the normal five minutes, but I'm afraid you might not have enough time. I'm sorry.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I see. In any case, I think that this leads us to a number of philosophical considerations. Let me conclude with a quotation that says that "living as a francophone in a minority setting requires a daily effort". In other words, it's not always easy in such a setting and it requires a daily effort on the part of individuals. You will have recognized the words of John Ralston Saul.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Ms. Adam. Once again, I apologize for this interruption. I'm sure that you will have a chance to come back to this.

Senator Gauthier, please.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You probably realize that because of my deafness, it's sometimes difficult for me to follow the debate. But I have a colleague beside me whose help is very much appreciated.

Commissioner, I would like to welcome you and to thank you for accepting the position that you now occupy. I think that it is a great challenge and you probably realize it.

My question is a technical one. Before asking it, I should say that Mr. Plamondon's question about institutional bilingualism as well as individual bilingualism looks a lot like a kind of national ketchup that we throw into every sauce. The departments tend to do so because they do not understand that living in a minority setting is, as you mentioned, a daily challenge.

Let me mention in passing that we did win the battle for Montfort. It took us time and money, but we did win, unless the government decides to appeal. We shall see.

My question relates to the some $450,000 that you are carrying over from last year's budget to that of the present year. What will this money be used for?

Ms. Dyane Adam: As you know, I started my new functions in mid-year. I know that the office of the Commissioner has more projects than it has money to fund. Even before I took over, Mr. Goldbloom did have to cut back on projects, in spite of this surplus. What will this money be used for? It was used for studies. I would say that it has already been spent.

But to give a more general response, if I may, during the first six months or the first year, I must assess the objectives of our office and see how the funds are now being used and set out priorities for the coming years. I can tell you that having undertaken this exercise with my team, I know that there are many new requirements, including requirements for studies in areas that are relatively crucial to official languages.

• 1625

I know that Senator Simard mentions in his report that the budget for the office of the Commissioner should be a bit more generous. I think I will be making known my full agreement with him once I have completed this examination of our present resources.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Go ahead, senator, you have some time left.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I haven't received an answer. Of course, you're not in a position to give me one since you are still studying your situation and establishing priorities for your projects.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have published two reports since you've taken on your position and you asked the Privy Council to give you a reply by December 1st, that is tomorrow. Are you optimistic?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, there are still 12 hours left.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do you intend to make these replies known?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I cannot give you a definite answer but I was told today that the decision was practically taken and that it was fairly favourable. I cannot tell you anymore about it since I have not yet seen it myself. I believe that Heritage Canada will be answering on behalf of the Privy Council. I know that this answer will be widely disseminated. It will not only be made known to the Commissioner, but to all the departments.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I didn't understand what the gentleman said, but it is good advice. Thank you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: It was just some additional information.

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

I now give the floor to senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald-A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I've always maintained that the Official Languages Act provided equality to the two languages in our country. What is equal is the languages and that is the beauty of Canada.

In a place where the language split is 50-50, it is easy. But in a place where there is a large discrepancy between the majority and the minority, it is more difficult. I can understand that this is rather troubling for people who say that if it's bilingual, then everyone should be satisfied. However, I've always said, and this is the concept in constitutional law, that in order to attain equality, a certain critical mass is necessary. This was done in the case of gender equality. We have not yet finished, we intend to continue.

When it comes to language, doesn't the same principle apply to some extent? If we want a relatively small minority to give valid expression to itself in its official language, should we not provide this minority with certain tools other than language in order to give expression to itself in its language? In other words, we are not merely talking about adding up individuals.

There are two official languages in Canada and one is not superior to the other. From the linguistic point of view, if there is a small minority in a particular province, it is more difficult to implement. Does this not justify, to some extent, a rather generous interpretation of the equality of the two languages?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Excuse me for interrupting you. Is it a question or a comment?

Senator Gérald-A. Beaudoin: It is a question.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I just want to be sure I understand your question.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I am expressing the idea that the two languages are official and if we want the minorities to express themselves in an official language, as in the case of francophones, then provision must be made for a certain critical mass, and the minority in the province must be allowed to have the appropriate instruments to express itself. In your opinion, is this the case?

I personally think it is so. I'm asking you the question because I like Part VII of the Official Languages Act. I keep coming back to it because I am convinced of its worth. I recognize that it is not easily implemented. But I am sure that you will be applying it.

• 1630

Ms. Dyane Adam: In order for a community to develop, favourable conditions must be created for its establishment. As a matter of fact, I am in the process of examining Part VII with my team. If we had to define indicators showing the vitality of a community, what would they be? Is it possible to reach a collective understanding on this subject?

Mr. Hill asked me how we measured progress. I think that one of the first things to do would be to define the indicators showing the vitality of a community. Senator Simard refers to this in his report as well as Mr. Chartier in his report on Manitoba. Perhaps you had the opportunity to read this report.

I think it is one of the issues that should be studied more for us to identify how a community should be able to make progress in a particular area, in Saskatchewan, for example, or elsewhere.

There is also, and I'll conclude on that point, the notion of critical mass that you referred to. I think that for the first time in ages, since the very existence of these minority communities in Canada, technology has made available the tools to counter their isolation and remoteness. I think this provides us with new ways of managing our country and living in French or in English. It is up to us to determine how these new technologies can be used for the benefit of the communities. It is something we are just starting to do, the process is grinding into gear.

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

Senator Fraser.

Senator Joan Thorne Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Welcome, Commissioner. I appreciate the symbolism of your presence here at the very time when we are celebrating the court's decision on Montfort Hospital. I think it is significant.

[English]

When you speak of indicators of the health of a community, you know the English community in Quebec has some serious concerns, including its ability to retain its young. One of the indicators that comes up negatively year after year after year is the ability of anglophones to find employment in the federal public service in Quebec. Do your estimates include any allocation for a fresh study of what it is that is going wrong there and what can be done about it?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I must say I've been over this issue, this question, over the last few months in office more times in the province of Quebec than probably most of the other provinces. The reason is that I need to know more myself. I already spent time hearing from different groups, such as the Townshippers' Association and Voice of English Quebec, as well as university professors and different leaders of the community.

At this stage, I think there seems to be a sense among the people I've heard from so far that, career-wise, federal institutions have not been as inviting. At least they don't feel they have been, whether it's feeling that you're part of something or are welcome or not. In also being a minority, I know that often it's not something that's written on the wall; you just feel it. So that's the extent of my analysis so far. I haven't gone beyond that, but I still want to.

• 1635

At my office we intend to spend more time looking at this issue of the language of work. After four months in office, I find this is probably the aspect of the act that is harder, because we are speaking of relationships between individuals, supervisors and employees, and these relationships between people are hard to legislate. They are a question of attitudes. Again, it's not like posting a position. It's not like putting a sign up. It's a lot more complex. And I do think I would not do justice to this question if I responded in an offhand way, because I think it's a very complex issue, a human issue.

[Translation]

Senator Joan Thorne Fraser: Do I have time for a second question?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Go ahead, Senator Fraser.

[English]

Senator Joan Thorne Fraser: In your preliminary remarks you said that in some cases you would be willing to take “drastic action”. That's the official English version. What is “drastic action”?

Ms. Dyane Adam: It can be denunciation or it can be special reports to Parliament. Depending on the nature of the problem, I try to... In my field we see the least intervention as the best. That is, you do not intervene if you do not need to, or you keep it to the minimum. If someone just needs to be assisted, helped out, or steered in the right direction, you do that. But if the problem is chronic, or if people resist change or deny that there's a problem, you have to be a bully at times just to ensure that there is a person's acknowledgement that there is a problem. If I am facing a situation in which there is a complete denial that there is a problem, I can tell you that at times I do need to be very confrontational.

Senator Joan Thorne Fraser: Do you mean legal proceedings and more legal proceedings?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Exactly, yes, legal proceedings, etc.

Senator Joan Thorne Fraser: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): We've now finished our first round. For the second round, I have the names of Messrs. Hill, Plamondon, Bélanger and Bellemare, Ms. Losier-Cool and myself, if no one else wishes to speak.

Mr. Hill.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would like to but since my turn would be quite late...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): After Mr. Bélanger. If I may, senator, I'll give the floor to Mr. Bellemare and then to you. Is that agreeable?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): We'll see how much time we have left.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: I'd like to give others the chance to ask questions. It's a special occasion and I'd like to leave time for others.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): You can see what a spirit of understanding there is among the parties in this committee.

Mr. Bellemare, Mr. Hill has just yielded his turn. You have the floor.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Hill, true to his habit, is a gentleman.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Exactly. Go ahead, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Ms. Adam, bravo and congratulations on your appointment. Do you see your role as that of an auditor or an initiator?

Ms. Dyane Adam: As an initiator and particularly a catalyst: initiator in the sense that I am proactive.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: All right.

My second question is as follows: How are you going to enforce the Official Languages Act in departments where there are problems? Earlier, you talked about statements or reporting to Parliament or even instituting legal proceedings if required. What do you intend to do about departments that are dragging their feet, given that in the past, words, great speeches and reports to Parliament didn't amount to much?

• 1640

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm going to answer the first question which, I believe, was about being an initiator. I intend, as much as possible, to look to the future with vigilance, meaning that I will try to foresee problems before they occur, because prevention is always preferable.

I will give you one or two examples, if I may. For instance, in the case of the Internet, there is no doubt that this report is much more proactive than reactive. At present, there is a real gap between the use of French and English on the Internet. The dynamics are not at all the same. The participation of francophones and anglophones is not equal. We know how important the Internet is going to be in the knowledge-based economy.

The federal government has invested a tremendous amount of money in order to direct our economy, and already there is a risk of social division. Our report underscored this problem and pointed out how important it was for the government to take action now, and not to wait.

Secondly, I would like to use the Air Canada file to demonstrate that I intend to be proactive rather than reactive. When the announcement about the air transportation reform was made, we did not wait for the bill to be tabled since we were very well informed, at the Office, as you are as well, of the current problems in implementing the legislation. Early on in the process, I met with Minister Collenette. I talked to the media and I also appeared before a parliamentary committee.

So, yes, I intend to take action and to be vigilant.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'd like to make two important points. Bill C-6, I believe, which deals with electronic commerce, is before the Senate. Have you had an opportunity to examine this bill?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Not yet, no.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If this bill is passed by the Senate, you'll have missed a prime opportunity to determine whether or not there are any problems pertaining to official languages.

I'd like to raise another issue. It's an issue that both my colleague, Mr. Bélanger and I hold very dear to our hearts, given that we both live in the National Capital Region, which will soon be designated as the City of Ottawa. It will now be referred to as the capital, and not the region.

The problem concerns the CRTC meetings with the cable distributors about programming. If I recall correctly, I think it was maybe three years ago, Mr. Bélanger and I attended a meeting where we were surprised to learn that the National Capital Region, on the Ottawa side, had not been designated as a bilingual sector as far as the CRTC was concerned.

The cable companies wanted the programming to include sports, American activities and all sorts of popular American shows. The French programs are not mandatory. Instead of having five out of 15 channels that are French, we can only get two. If we both understood correctly, the CRTC does not consider that the City of Ottawa has been designated as a bilingual city when it comes to cable TV.

Do you intend to deal with this file which, in my opinion, is a national scandal, considering that we are talking about the capital of Canada, where the Official Languages Act should be enforced?

• 1645

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Ms. Adam, I would ask you to give a brief answer, please.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I would like to tell Mr. Bellemare that I have not answered his second question and he is already discussing the third. He is really going fast. We'll skip the second question.

As for the third question, which dealt with the CRTC, I have already met with Ms. Bertrand and we discussed this issue. As far as I know, hearings on this matter were held last Spring, and the Commissioner made a presentation exactly along the same lines as what you propose. Ms. Bertrand told me that the decision should be handed down in February.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Good news. Good news.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Going back to the second question, you asked me what we can do aside from speechmaking. I believe that you too have a role within this committee.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I am not the witness.

Ms. Dyane Adam: All right, but I too intend to work with parliamentarians and people who can make their voices heard loud and clear in various forums in order to...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Don't you worry about me.

Ms. Dyane Adam: All the better!

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

Mr. Plamondon, it's your turn.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Commissioner, in your presentation, you alluded to three reports. You mentioned the Fontaine Report, the Savoie Report and even the Simard Report.

I would like to quote a sentence from each of these reports and I will ask you a question.

The Fontaine Report states:

It appears that the cumulative effect of the government transformations and cutbacks in federal funding has shaken minority official language communities' confidence in the federal government.

This is a serious judgment.

Another serious judgment can be found in the Savoie Report, where it is stated that:

... the majority of these 17 departments and agencies intend to produce these action plans...

—in accordance with Part VII—

... as a theoretical exercise or a new administrative requirement imposed on them by the higher authorities. (Translation)

Once again, the Savoie Report is very critical about what has occurred over the past few years.

More recently, the Simard Report stated:

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

These three reports are highly critical about the way we operate. I would also remind you that, last week, the Commission nationale des parents francophones declared that the situation had become extremely urgent, since the number of entitled francophones is in a free fall. The Heritage Minister stated that she was continuing to abide by current policy. We therefore have three reports that do not appear to be getting the government to move.

You, as the Commissioner of Official Languages, have been in your position for six months and I would ask you whether or not you believe that the federal government is fulfilling its legislative requirements by requiring that only 27 federal departments or agencies abide by Part VII of the Official Languages Act when it has 128 organizations under its jurisdiction.

Ms. Dyane Adam: My office feels that other organizations should be involved in the implementation of Part VII. Indeed, limiting the number to 27 is rather restrictive.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you for your answer.

Do I still have a little bit of time remaining?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Yes, you have one minute left.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you.

You asked the committee to comment on your annual report.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would like to make a small suggestion.

We had a tradition that goes back to the years 1985, 1986 and 1987, when Mr. D'Iberville Fortier was Commissioner of Official Languages and I was a member of this committee. I think that I was given a permanent seat because I have been participating in this committee for so long. We were always analyzing the situation by comparing the anglophone minority in Quebec to the francophone minority outside Quebec. Let's say that both groups have problems. However, it seems to me that these two situations are completely different. Because the francophone minority is living in an anglophone sea, including the United States and Canada, its problems differ from those of the anglophone minority in Quebec. This seems obvious to me.

• 1650

In your future reports, could we not have an analysis of minority language groups in their particular situation, independently of the others? Let us look at the situation of francophones, ascertain the problems and find solutions. Then we could look at the situation of anglophones in Quebec, which is completely different. In their case, it may be more a question of improving existing services; they have everything. There is also a survival issue, because they account for only 8% of the population of Quebec. Otherwise, there is no comparison with the situation of francophones outside Quebec, because they are really being assimilated and disappearing. In Quebec, the percentage of anglophones is remaining constant at 8%. Whereas the assimilation rate of francophones can be as high as 70%, in British Columbia for example.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Do you want a clear answer?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That completes my questioning. My suggestion, Madam Chair, is that we examine this situation quite differently, rather than always making a comparison.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I've made note of that. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I will now give the floor to Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mention has been made of the good news regarding yesterday's judgment, but there is another matter which is just as promising, in my view. This happened last Friday, and I would like the committee to take note of it.

I'm referring to a recommendation made by Mr. Glen Shortliffe, the former Privy Council Clerk, who was commissioned by the Ontario government to report on the issue of merging cities in the National Capital Region. Without going into the merger issue, it should be mentioned that the geographic outlines of the capital of Canada will be redefined. Mr. Shortliffe also recommended to the Ontario government that the new city have two official languages—English and French.

I hope my colleagues on the committee will join with me in encouraging the government of Ontario to accept this recommendation and to include it in its bill that redefines the city that is the capital of our country.

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

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would now like to turn to what I think is the most important issue we should be dealing with as a committee—namely Part VII of the Official Languages Act. I think that is the most important thing this committee can do for the well being of official language minority communities.

I would like to ask for your help, Commissioner, because I think there is a great shortage of information on this subject. For example, there is a difference of opinion, I believe, between the Department of Justice and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding the scope of this part of the Act. Is it declaratory or binding in nature? I think that is the heart of the matter, because as long as it is considered declaratory, it cannot be applied in a binding or mandatory way to the agreements the government may sign with other provinces. Am I correct on this?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: All right.

Am I also correct in saying that because of the declaratory nature that some wish to ascribe to this part of the Act, the same problem occurs when the government establishes agencies—as it has done three times in recent years, with the Food Inspection Agency, the Parks Canada Agency and the Canada Revenue Commission?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I see your point.

An Hon. Member: The Act applies—

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, because there are provisions on language.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like the situation to be investigated. With the support of some opposition members, I myself forced an amendment when we were studying the Parks Agency bill, and we were asked to refer specifically to section 4.

• 1655

I'm starting to wonder about this. I would like to hear the opinion of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages on these agencies established by the government.

Ms. Dyane Adam: It was my impression that the Act applied, but we can check into this.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Could we ask the Commissioner's Office to give us a fairly short, quite comprehensive briefing document on this, so that we can understand what is happening? This situation leads me to think that the most important task this committee can perform is to clarify the scope of Part VII, including section 41, because all this could come into play.

I agree that the government must definitely respond to the Fontaine Report. This will be my final question. It is your understanding that the government will not be responding officially to the recommendations contained in these reports. Are you including the Fontaine Report in that? Could you tell us why you have this impression? I'm somewhat surprised by this and I would be very disappointed if the government were not to respond to the Fontaine Report.

Ms. Dyane Adam: According to our information, some adjustments may be required to take into account certain recommendations. When we talk about an official response, we are referring to a proper response to the various recommendations contained in the Fontaine Report, with follow-up whenever necessary. Our "informants" tell us that that may take too long.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I hope your informants are wrong.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I hope so too.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So we can expect a briefing document from the Commissioner's Office on the significance of this difference of opinion.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes. You raise the issue of Part VII, regarding which we say we have a legal remedy. We can refer all these issues to the Federal Court, but Part VII will definitely be one of our priorities during my seven-year mandate. We would like greater clarification of what is meant by development and vitality.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Commissioner. We have exactly 16 minutes before the bell calls some of us to the House of Commons for a vote.

I will give the floor to Senator Beaudoin, of course, but I would ask you kindly to leave a few minutes for Ms. Losier-Cool and for myself as well to ask a few questions.

Please proceed, Senator.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: My question is very specific, and I raised it the other day. I consider Part VII very important for its substance, not just its form.

When the federal authority can take court action under Part VII, it can also delegate powers to the lawyers it chooses. In the case of Ontario, I think this delegated authority must take into account the fact that there are francophones in Ontario and that the two official languages—which, I repeat, are equal—must be respected. Never forget that both languages are equal, just as in Quebec both languages are equal. People do not always realize that, but it is true.

Do you agree with my view? Do you think that if there is delegated authority a bilingual or francophone lawyer must be chosen in the case of court action resulting from a violation of the Act?

Ms. Dyane Adam: The whole issue you raise is fundamental to the remedy.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: In the Federal Court?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, the remedy of the Commissioner's Office regarding the Contraventions Act.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, that's right.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Exactly.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It is before the Federal Court as we speak.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Good luck.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, good luck to all of us.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Ms. Losier-Cool also asked for the floor.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Thank you, Madam Chair. As joint chair of this committee, I too would like to welcome you to this meeting and congratulate you on your appointment. I hope your mandate will be successful and somewhat happy too. Why not? We need happiness in our work.

• 1700

Yesterday, we met with representatives from the Équipe francophone here on Parliament Hill. I hope they had an opportunity to meet with you and to tell you about their grievances. This group of people came to discuss the National Children's Agenda.

You say you are initiators. All of us, including the members of Parliament and senators at this table, want to know what part VII of the Official Languages Act means and how we can enhance the vitality of the communities. Would it not be a good idea to start with children?

Have you received any complaints about integrated services? I acknowledge that many aspects of these services come under provincial jurisdiction. Our francophone communities are entitled to their schools, but in Regina or Winnipeg, people do not always have social workers, nurses or other health-care specialists who speak French.

Could this be one of your priorities for study and research? That would help us with our study of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Thank you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: To my knowledge, there have been no complaints of this type.

It is interesting that you raised the issue of children and youth, because children are one of the main themes of the Speech from the Throne. I would like to make children and youth one of my priorities.

Many complainants are in the older age groups. The Act was passed 30 years ago. Today's children and youth were not involved in developing the Act. They grew up in a bilingual country and they take that for granted. Now, 30 years later, it is time we got in touch with young people and the population generally in a more dynamic way.

You will not be surprised to hear me say that when I took up my position, I was absolutely shocked by the computer support services available. I come from an academic background, where everyone is computerized and our students have a number. We have a lot of work to do to make the Commissioner's Office into an organization that is in touch with people and more open to them, and to facilitate dynamic interactive exchanges with all components of society.

The Internet and schools are definitely the best way to reach children and youth today. I definitely intend to develop this aspect of the services of the Commissioner's Office. These efforts are in keeping with the thrust of the Speech from the Throne, which speaks about the federal government's desire to provide Canadians with better, more up-to-date services. The Commissioner's Office could perhaps be a pilot project for the government. We are looking into this possibility.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I would like to add that the Équipe francophone asked us to lobby three departments: the Department of Justice, on the Young Offenders Act; the Human Resources Development Department, following the devolution of authority to the provinces; and the Department of Health, on the issue I mentioned earlier. Personally, I think Part VII of the Official Languages Act applies. If we want our children to stay francophones, we have to make things liveable for them.

• 1705

Earlier, I wished you happiness in your mandate. I hope that children will be one of the issues you study.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I want to respond spontaneously. I work in the health care field. Sometimes we tend to define health on the basis of the services we get, but this is not the point. Health is about quality of life. When you talk about young children, you have to look at the quality of their environment. Is it positive for the child? Does it reflect a positive image of the child? I think you are asking us to look at Part VII in this context.

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

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

I am the last speaker, and I have two questions for you from Mr. Yvon Godin, who is a member of Parliament and could not be with us this afternoon. He sent me his two questions.

The first is about Canadian Blood Services. I know you have had some correspondence from Mr. Godin on this. He refers to some blood donor clinics staffed by unilingual anglophones in regions where most people speak french. What are the obligations of Canadian Blood Services as regards the Official Languages Act? Have you received other complaints on this?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I have been in the position for four months. I think I have read all the complaints we received and I have not seen anything about this. I will check whether there were any complaints before I arrived, and what their status is. We will reply to Mr. Godin through you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I would appreciate that very much.

The second question is about Air Canada's regional services. We did not touch on this subject much this afternoon. Mr. Godin is from the Maritimes, and he says he often cannot get bilingual service on Air Nova flights. He knows that Air Canada maintains that its regional carriers are not subject to the Official Languages Act. Mr. Godin acknowledges the efforts made by the Commissioner's Office to date on this matter and asks what concrete steps have been taken and what results have been produced?

Ms. Dyane Adam: We are involved in a court remedy at the moment. The position of the Commissioner's Office is that we think regional carriers are subject to the Official Languages Act just as Air Canada is, because they are wholly-owned subsidiaries. Air Canada claims that is not the case. The proceedings have reached the stage where the lawyers are sharing their information. There have been some delays and we are waiting for this information and analysis to be completed before we proceed.

In recent months two Parliamentary committees have studied the reform of the air transportation industry. My approach and that of my Office during these proceedings has been preventive in nature. If Parliament has to redo the Act, amend it or do something along those lines, parliamentarians must define and clarify this situation rather than leaving it up to the courts to decide. That is our position. We would like Parliament to decide this, rather than the courts.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): That is what we would like as well, Commissioner.

• 1710

There is nothing more for me to do except to thank you and your colleagues for coming to meet us this afternoon. This was our first meeting and we managed to examine some issues in depth. I know this was an initial encounter and that we will have further opportunities to discuss things together. Thanks again for coming.

In due course, when the proceedings are more advanced, we might perhaps come back to the issue of Air Nova and Air Canada. I think that would be helpful for you and for us.

Ms. Dyane Adams: I would be pleased to appear before the committee whenever you wish, and whenever you have any questions for me. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I would like to remind committee members that the next meeting will be held next week, on Tuesday, December 7 at 3.30 p.m. in this room. We will be hearing from a witness from Treasury Board, who will no doubt be discussing the department's action plan.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.