EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 25, 1997
• 1539
[English]
The Joint Chair (Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): I see a quorum, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon, are you going to join us?
[English]
We welcome you again, Dr. Goldbloom. We are delighted that you're joining us. This time, I gather, you are here first and foremost to look at the estimates.
Dr. Goldbloom, I read your presentation from the last meeting, which was most interesting, but I think I'd like the beginning of the meeting to focus on the estimates and the impact of the changes and the cuts. In a sense, what the committee members will be in a position to ask of you will be about the nature of the impact on the promotion of one of the fundamental characteristics of Canada, that is, the promotion and support of official languages, either English or French, wherever they may be found.
• 1540
For me and for the committee it's really the
chien de garde role that we want to play, and that's
the help we look to you for.
Do you have a statement to make about the estimates first, sir? Then we'll move on.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom (Commissioner of Official Languages): I have a very brief one.
If I understand correctly, the estimates are adopted and therefore this is the budget we have to work with.
[Translation]
I have taken the initiative, Madam Chair, of preparing a brief table that I would like to distribute to the members of the committee; it gives a five-year overview of both our financial and human resources.
You will notice that both the financial resources and human resources have decreased substantially at the Commission. We had 169 full-time equivalent positions in 1993-94. This year, we have 126. I would like to emphasize that we are now at the point where I asked the director to please indicate to me what we are not able to do because of the reductions we have suffered.
[English]
I should also point out that the commissioner, as an officer of Parliament, is not in the same situation as most federal institutions with regard to Treasury Board. Parliament has a direct reciprocal relationship with the commissioner. It might therefore have been conceivable that the commissioner could have pleaded the special nature of that relationship with Parliament to say his office should not be included in the overall process of budgetary compressions.
It seemed to me that the necessity for all of us to contribute to the improvement of the public finances of this country required that I participate in the program review process and that I accept the progressive reduction over the three-year period, with which everyone is familiar.
So this is the result, and as I indicated a moment ago, we are now in a position where we have to ask ourselves each time a request or an opportunity may arise if we have the resources, particularly the human resources, to be able to respond positively and to carry out that undertaking.
[Translation]
That is all I had to say in my introductory statement, Madam Chair. I have the document I referred to for distribution to the members of the committee.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That is very nice. Thank you.
[English]
Dr. Goldbloom, before we start the questions, could you explain...? I heard what you said during your presentation. The accords were signed at the end of March 1997 by Heritage and Treasury Board for Treasury Board to undertake certain steps to ensure the application of official languages across this land, and your report, which was in March just prior to that signature....
• 1545
Has the impact in any way through that
memorandum of understanding picked up some of the work
you used to do, thereby giving space for you to
undertake other activities, or at least to ensure those
activities that you consider important can be carried
on? Has there been any improvement or interruption, or
how do you see that MOU?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: The program review process focused on possible duplication between our activity and that of other agencies, particularly Treasury Board, for example. We had a category of activity that we called evaluations, which went beyond the handling of complaints and took a more general look at how each federal institution—a selected number of federal institutions each year—were responding to their obligations regarding official languages. It was agreed that we would withdraw from the evaluation process.
What seems to have happened since that time is that there has been a greater reliance on self-evaluation by federal institutions. Without wishing to be disrespectful towards federal institutions, I think it is a human phenomenon to want to present one's best portrait when one is doing one's own evaluation. I would simply say that it is not quite the same as having an outside evaluation by someone who has a particular objective with regard to results, and those results are primarily appropriate service to the public.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you. I noted in the report that they tabled the accountability framework and the undertaking by the ministers to enlarge the activity and to ensure a much closer follow-up and framework. This will help this committee when Minister Massé comes before us—to know where you see any
[Translation]
unnecessary overlap or inefficient duplication, and anything not positive for the future.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I do not see any overlap at this point, Madam Chair. I believe that our relations with Treasury Board in particular are, to a large extent, productive, but I will not go as far as to say that I am fully satisfied with the way things are working.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.
The questioning will now start. Mr. Jaffer, Mr. Plamondon, and Mr. Assadourian—please raise your hands in the order that you would like to be heard.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Goldbloom, for attending our committee here again. Last time you were here I asked a question that I would like further clarification on, since I have learned a few different things.
It's simply about the violations to the Official Languages Act. I'm just curious. In your opinion do you think the courts could handle these problems more effectively than specifically Official Languages taking it upon themselves to defend certain problems that may infringe on the act?
I just want to hear your opinion on whether or not there is a legal mandate for Official Languages to take on that responsibility and whether it could in fact be turned over to the courts.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: There is a legal mandate, and that was added to the original Official Languages Act when a new version was adopted by Parliament in 1988. That allows a complainant who is not satisfied with the process of complaint handling—with the result of that process—to take the matter before the courts.
I would like to emphasize how much we try to simplify the procedures and to avoid the kind of conflictual situation by working both with the complainant on the one hand and the federal institution on the other.
• 1550
The exceptional situation that ends up before the
courts tends to be of greater breadth and greater
complexity, to involve something of a fundamental
principle or else serious damage to a person's
interests. Again, without any wish to be critical
or disrespectful, I think that we are all aware that to
take a matter before the courts involves appreciable
time and appreciable expenditure. Our ability to
deal with most complaints, even those that are
relatively complex, in a more cost-efficient and
time-efficient manner causes me to say, no, it would
not be helpful, it would not be a service to the public
to transfer the responsibility to the court system.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: So I take it that it's almost preventative, to some extent, as you mentioned, for some cases in essence really to blow out of context or blow into higher levels, for them to have that legal aspect so that you can actually take care of the problem before it grows too large.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes.
As I believe I mentioned at the last sitting of the committee, we looked not very long ago at the outcomes of our recommendation process and were extremely gratified to find that the commissioner's recommendations do bring about improvement in service to the public or, in some instances, in the working conditions of federal public servants and in the life of official language minority communities.
So our assessment of the process has come to a positive conclusion, that we do help people by carrying out our complaint-handling process and doing it in, as I said, a cost-efficient and time-efficient fashion.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I have no more questions.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon, please, five minutes.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, I am also very surprised, surprised and disappointed as you are no doubt also, by the lack of respect shown by the government in the cuts it has carried out over the past few years.
You spoke of 169 people and you are now down to 126. In terms of money as well, this is a serious reduction that may affect how your investigations are carried out. I wonder if this lack of understanding, the government's approach of treating the department you represent the same as all the others where cuts are concerned, will affect your investigations. Personally, I have always said that I questioned some of your actions and even sometimes the existence of your position, if your vision of bilingualism is the same as that of your predecessor. I must, however, acknowledge that you have prepared very useful studies, such as the one on workplace bilingualism in the National Capital Region. That study gave a more accurate picture of the situation and led some of those responsible to act differently in certain departments.
I would like to know, therefore, if a budget decrease such as the one you are undergoing, as well as a reduction in staff, really threatened the existence of these studies that I would characterize as extremely practical.
I will conclude on that note and I will listen to your answer very carefully.
• 1555
I wonder how the government can think that each department or
Crown corporation can manage itself and evaluate itself. It is a
little like asking the Auditor General to disappear and have each
department do its own overall audit. We would certainly not have an
accurate picture because, as you say, each department would present
itself in the best light.
Consequently, Commissioner, I think that you should be more aggressive—in the positive sense of the term—toward the government and Treasury Board, so that they understand that the Commissioner is there to carry out investigations and that departments must not be left to evaluate themselves.
In my opinion, the departments should submit plans to you, which you would monitor after they had been approved by the committee. I will let you respond to that.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: First of all, when we were advised of the government's intention to reduce public expenditures and reduce public service staff levels, we, like nearly all the institutions, had a certain number of people who were near the traditional age of retirement and who accepted arrangements offered to them for early retirement.
And since we were already anticipating that these people would be taking their retirement soon, we did not have significant difficulties in the first year of that process. The second year, we started to reflect on our ability to do everything that we were doing, and the third year, obviously, we had somewhat greater difficulty.
But I do not want to exaggerate these difficulties. We managed to carry out our special studies, for example on the administration of justice in both official languages, of which we are now completing the second phase. We are also doing follow-up concerning our major study on service points designated bilingual.
We have, however, felt that if this committee were to ask the Commissioner to examine and evaluate the third generation of action plans of the 27 federal institutions responsible for application of Part VII of the Act, we would have difficulty finding the human resources to do that.
We will henceforth have certain choices to make and we will need to examine our resources with respect to the existing needs. It is in that light, as I said a few minutes ago, that I asked the directors of the various branches this week to indicate to me what we are not able to do with the various resources, in particular human resources, that we have at present.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You have about 35 seconds. Do you have another question?
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes. Historically, the commissioner's role was, of course, to receive complaints and to ensure that the action plans prepared by the various federal departments and agencies were implemented. But there was also a kind of monitoring role for documents that you carried out without needing to receive complaints to do so. I would give the example, as I did the other time, of the English-only museum poster. Before, an official complaint was useless because there were staff watching out for this type of lack of compliance. It is therefore totally unthinkable that this work could be carried out now with the few resources you have.
• 1600
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I would like to say that I monitor press clippings closely that I receive every day and I take initiatives. Naturally, I am able to do this only with the co-operation of my staff.
I do not want to be passive and wait for complaints to arrive, because I want to act in such a way as to remind people of their responsibilities. I would also emphasize that, even though we agreed with Treasury Board that we would no longer carry out the evaluations that we used to do, that does not mean that we will not act at all in this area. If you compare last year's annual report with previous reports, you can see that instead of about 50 evaluations of federal institutions, we carried out maybe about 15, but they have not disappeared.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you. Mr. Assadourian.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.
I have two questions. One is clarification for my own personal information and the other one is a question about the budget.
First, are there any comparisons or similarities between your job and the job of the so-called language police in Quebec? Where do the similarities begin and where do they end?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I would have to say there is some general similarity in that the Office de la langue française does receive complaints and does take action on them. But we do not have the power of intervention, the power of ordering things to be done or not to be done. We are limited to recommendations.
I would also say that we have a different philosophy. Our primary philosophy is to ensure that Canadians receive appropriate, understandable services where numbers warrant. Obviously, that's based on census figures for where there are concentrations of minority official language populations. We have a different mentality and a different objective. I think we are focused more on ensuring that the public is appropriately served.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So you're basically more democratic than the language police.
My question about the budget is related to something I noticed here on this sheet—and I'm sure you have this sheet—
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Do you ever go to Quebec?
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes. I lived in Quebec.
My question is about this finance report here. There are budget cuts from approximately $12.2 million to almost $10 million. Am I right?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: You're right.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: That's lower than the average cut in all the departments in the government. For example, Transport was 40%, but yours is 23% or 24%. How much of a sacrifice is that compared to the overall sacrifice that people have had to make in order to balance the budget for us?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: My understanding was that there was a three-year program of cutbacks, which were 5% a year if I remember correctly. This adds up to somewhat more than that, although those amounts are obviously compounded.
We could have tried to be an exception to the rule, but as I said earlier, I simply felt that in a time of universal belt-tightening it was not acceptable that we not accept to go along with that program. The figures you see are the result of that. They're in addition to the cutbacks in personnel. We had a few people who retired and we chose not to replace them, to abolish the position rather than to fill it again.
• 1605
I mention one major example. For a long time there
was a position of deputy commissioner. The deputy
commissioner decided to retire. I decided at that
point to abolish the position, not have a deputy
commissioner, and relate myself directly with the
five directors of our branches. It seemed to me that
to have five people reporting directly to me was not
excessive from an administrative point of view.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Commissioner, were there not two additional amounts of money on supplementary estimates that were accorded in the amount of close to $500,000 and then $400,000 for a total of $900,000?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Let me explain those amounts, Madam Chair. For a couple of years we were able to spend less than the budget allocated to us. Although in previous years the arrangement had been that any surplus went back to the consolidated funds, an arrangement was put forward that up to 5% of the budget could be carried over. This was an encouragement to administer prudently and also not to spend anything that remained in the last weeks of the fiscal year in order not to give it back. When those amounts are carried over, they have to be identified in a supplementary budget as being added to the budget of the subsequent year. So those are the additional amounts. They are not increases in our resources.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you for that clarification.
Mr. Coderre, followed by Senator Rivest and Mr. Paradis.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Chair, I would like to raise a point of order.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me, sir. Yes?
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon: I thought we were going to alternate.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I already have it organized, thank you. I am presiding, and I would appreciate it if you allow me to make the decisions.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Chair, I would like to raise a point of order.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Coderre, you will have the balance of Mr. Assadourian's time.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon: A point of order, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, on a point of order, sir.
[Translation]
Mr. Denier Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): The government has a right to ten minutes. The ten minutes are not up, therefore I am continuing.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: That's what I would like you to explain, Madam Chair.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think that you should trust the Chair.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: It is not a lack of trust, Madam Chair.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I am following the order that was requested, Mr. Plamondon.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Let me finish my point of order.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Go ahead.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: It was seven minutes, seven minutes, seven minutes.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I gave you nine minutes, sir.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: I did not say that was not the case.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Would you like me to prove it to you?
Mr. Louis Plamondon: If they have not finished, I have no objection. That is what I was asking you. I thought you were going to allow someone else to speak without coming back to this side of the table. That is all I was asking you and you have answered me satisfactorily, Madam Chair.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much. Mr. Coderre.
Mr. Denis Coderre: He did not take up any of my time, I hope.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: No, no.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): For Mr. Coderre, I am adding two extra minutes.
An Hon. Member: A bonus.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Two extra minutes for good behaviour.
As we say where I come from, for the record, Commissioner, it is clear that a responsible government that has to administer public monies must, in a deficit context, ensure that informed decisions are made so that the deficit can be eliminated as quickly as possible, which we are doing, by the way.
I also want to salute your sacrifices. You had a role to play and you did what was necessary. But that does not mean that priority should not be given to certain approaches, since work must carry on nonetheless.
I would ask you, perhaps, to begin by telling us if the budget cuts have had a direct impact on settling complaints and on your way of working. Have you had difficulties or have the sacrifice and the need to give priority to certain expenditures not in fact helped you or enabled you to work better or to reorganize your commission to be more efficient. I will come back later with another question.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Since dealing with complaints is, in my opinion, one of the Commission's primary responsibilities as an ombudsman, I have made sustained efforts to reduce the time required to deal with complaints.
• 1610
The directors and myself meet once a month to study the
complaint files that have been in our hands for some time. When I
arrived, there were cases that had been dragging on and I wanted to
correct that situation.
We have managed to reduce the number of files that normally require a long time to settle, and we ensure each month that there are valid reasons for a complaint taking more time to be settled. For that reason, we have not noted to date a difference in how complaints are handled and how efficiently that process works. It is more in the area of studies that we feel we may not have the necessary resources and that we may have to make some choices and not carry out certain studies.
Mr. Denis Coderre: You are telling me, then, that such important work as the handling of complaints has not been affected by the sacrifices that you have had to make or by the budget cuts imposed on you.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Second, when we look at schedule 3 of the 1997-98 estimates, we see that there are five complaints that were not settled in 1993 and 76 in 1994. Is that still the case, and how many of those complaints have finally been settled? That takes time and costs money as well.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I will have to obtain the most recent figures. As I just said, dealing with complaints in a timely fashion is a major priority for me. That is why I set up the monthly complaints review system in order to avoid having cases drag on without a valid reason.
Mr. Denis Coderre: How much time does it take to deal with a complaint between the time you receive it and the time it is settled?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: We try to settle complaints within six months and, where possible, within three months. It all depends, of course, on the complexity of the complaint. Where there is inadvertence, as in the case of a federal institution that puts an ad in the majority-language newspaper and forgets to do so in the minority-language newspaper in the same region, the complaint is not a very complex one. In such a case, we check the facts and we make a recommendation.
Where a complaint—here I am taking into account a comment by Senator Rivest a few moments ago—comes under Part VII of the Act, we may not be able to write a final report in less than one year because of the complexity of the situation. But I would draw a distinction between evaluating action plans and dealing with complaints. Complaints under Part VII of the Act have increased over the past few years, creating considerably more work for us.
It is specifically with respect to evaluating the action plans, which will soon be in their third generation, that we may lack the human resources needed to carry out the work if the committee asks us to do so.
• 1615
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think that indicates that we have to look at—perhaps the steering committee could look at this—the responsibilities that were undertaken or allocated to the Treasury Board as new responsibilities and how that affects what the commissioner has just said to us. I suggest that that's an area that needs closer attention.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest, you have the floor.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): Thank you, Madam.
With respect to staff cuts, I would like to know whether there has been a proportionally greater decrease in staff assigned to Quebec than to other provinces, or whether the decreases have been equitable?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Our staff is able to deal with complaints launched by both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. The fact is that, on a per capita basis, we receive fewer complaints from Quebec than from any other region of Canada. Federal services are available in both official languages nearly everywhere in Quebec.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: And the needs of minority communities outside Quebec, in terms of their survival and development, are, of course, much greater. Therefore, if you need to refocus your energies, will you perhaps be looking in that direction?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Our staff in the regional offices deal with a little over half the complaints. We have worked to decentralize the handling of complaints, especially complaints that are less complex, in order to bring the person dealing with the complaint closer to the public and the community.
We have not had to substantially decrease our staff in the regional offices and we have a sizable complement of people in the Montreal office, which is also responsible for Quebec.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Thank you for these clarifications, and I believe I have understood that the survival and development of minority groups, especially outside Quebec, depends mainly on Part VII, that is development of community action.
And when you tell us that the budget cuts could slow down the Commission's activities in the area of program monitoring and evaluation in Part VII, that worries me a bit because it seems to me to be the very key to survival for the francophone minorities.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I obviously share your appreciation for the Official Languages Act and for the importance of Part VII in ensuring the vitality and development of minority official languages communities and, in particular, without making a specific comparison, in the case of francophone minority communities.
A few minutes ago, I drew a distinction because we have come through a period in which federal institutions, in particular the 27 designated ones, have begun to become aware of their responsibilities. We still need to give these institutions our feedback and assessment of the second generation of the action plans. This work is nearly completed, but it is not fully complete at the moment. We have also given fairly detailed recommendations about how the institutions in question should plan to apply Part VII of the Act.
• 1620
I hope that we have now shown the way and that we will be able
to deal with complaints better and intervene in cases where a
community or an individual points out a shortcoming with respect to
the enforcement of Part VII.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Do you have one final short question, Madam Chair?
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes. I hope that you're going to remember this conversation, because I want to raise this issue at the steering committee.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Very well.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Please proceed.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: One final question, which is not necessarily related to personnel. To compensate for certain cutbacks in staff, perhaps the Commissioner should adopt a sterner approach. I believe that the committee has often made such a recommendation.
My question is very simple and you can respond with a yes or a no. I would imagine that the Commissioner approves the action taken by Ontario's francophones to obtain constitutional recognition of their rights, just as New Brunswick's francophones have done.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I approve and support this effort which began this week. At the same time, I feel that practical results are what is important and, in my opinion, a formal statement of principle is one thing, but if it is not accompanied by concrete results, if services are not improved, if the attention given to the minority community is not more vigilant, then the declaration of principle does not help us enough.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Have you finished? Thank you.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: May I add a sentence?
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Go ahead.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Furthermore, you will agree with me that, in keeping with the spirit of Part VII which, obviously, is a matter of federal jurisdiction and pertains to the Official Languages Act, if such constitutional recognition had existed for the francophones of Ontario, we would have had an additional legal or moral argument to defend community life, such as in the Montfort Hospital case, for example.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: This is not simply something which is of legal significance or something that pertains to principles, but it may also carry some political weight, some very considerable political weight.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes. You know, Senator Rivest, that I have been interested in the Montfort Hospital file from the start and I have put forward a proposal that I will be discussing with the appropriate federal and provincial ministers that the Montfort Hospital become a clinical training centre for all of Canada's francophone professionals.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you. I must tell you, Mr. Paradis, that we owe you fifteen seconds.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Doctor Goldbloom, first of all I would like to congratulate you on the visibility you have brought to your position. I met you this summer, when you were visiting groups in Quebec. I would like to talk to you about something which pertains somewhat to the issue of visibility.
Earlier, Madam Chair was mentioning, I believe, potential overlap between your organization and others described on page 3 of the Estimates. We read that four central organizations work in the area of official languages, the Privy Council Office, Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and the Department of Canadian Heritage.
A matter to be raised in conjunction with Treasury Board concerns, and I will give you a concrete example, the Ottawa Airport. I must tell you that every time I arrive at this airport, I notice that French is not spoken very much. You can always find somebody, somewhere, who manages to speak French. However, this airport is to some extent the symbol of federal institutions. An airport is a gateway to the country.
In fact, one wonders whether airports still have the status of a federal institution since their privatization. All the same, I do believe that they have a symbolic value and that the people who work there, whether they be in security, with the RCMP, in baggage search or at the sandwich or newspaper counter, should be, at least in the country's capital, fully bilingual. This should be a condition of employment that applies not only to the federal public servants but also to the subcontractors who work there, starting with the taxi driver.
One group talked to me about this. I chair the Canada-France Parliamentary Association, and we entertain members and senators from France who, upon their arrival here, are greeted exclusively in English at the country's airport.
• 1625
I think that this is important.
At any rate, I was tying this in with my question about whether or not there is an overlap problem. Last year, I asked the Treasury Board Deputy Minister the same question, when I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee. He told us that he was responsible for enforcing the Official Languages Act at Treasury Board. I therefore asked him the same question. I still have not received an answer. I believe it is important that someone take this file on hand, or else it will fall through the cracks.
My question is twofold; is there any overlap between your organization and Treasury Board or do neither of you have jurisdiction over this type of situation? My question also pertains to the other airports, such as the one in Moncton, for instance. The Sommet de la francophonie will be held in Moncton in 1999. Is it too soon to start ensuring, in advance, that the Moncton Airport will be fully bilingual?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Mr. Paradis, as far as airports are concerned, there is no overlap and things are not slipping between the cracks. We receive complaints and we deal with them. There are nine airports in Canada that process at least a million passengers per year. Consequently, these airports must be able to operate fully in both official languages.
We receive complaints, we investigate, we have gone as far as instituting legal proceedings against two airports, the one in Toronto and the one in Halifax, because of shortcomings in the services provided by these two airports.
It is obvious that the legislator wanted to maintain official language obligations for the private authorities. In some instances, the response has been positive and the results have been satisfactory.
In other cases, we have persistent problems. Take, for example, the Vancouver Airport, where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. According to our interpretation of the Official Languages Act, the airport has official languages obligations with respect to both the travelling public and the general public, the public from the Greater Vancouver Area, for instance. The airport authorities have told us no; according to their interpretation, their obligations are restricted to the travelling public. We may be asking the courts to settle the issue.
Certain responsibilities come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and we intervene in order to remind the latter of its responsibilities, such as security searches. While these duties may be performed by an airline, the responsibility of the Department of Transport remains and we remind the department of this fact.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You have two minutes, Mr. Paradis. Don't worry.
Mr. Denis Paradis: Another brief question. As far as bilingualism is concerned, I would add that out of 15 RCMP officers posted at the Ottawa Airport, you will surely find somebody who is bilingual.
But that is not what bilingualism is all about. The 15 police officers should speak both English and French and that should be a condition of employment in order to be assigned to an airport such as the one in Ottawa. Bilingualism does not mean being told by somebody, as I am occasionally told, that he can find somebody who speaks French. It's not about running from one end of the airport to the other to find someone who speaks French. I think that all the positions in an airport such as the Ottawa Airport should be bilingual and that people who are not bilingual should not be able to fill them.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I agree with you about situations where someone has to be able to respond to questions from a stranger in both official languages. We must ensure that each work team comprises an adequate number of bilingual people.
• 1630
I understand, Mr. Paradis, that you would like to see all
positions designated bilingual. When we receive a complaint of this
nature, should we be assessing whether or not all of the positions
should be bilingual? Is it enough to have 10 out of 15 bilingual
people, or something along that line?
I do not want to attempt to answer your question about the Ottawa Airport specifically without basing myself on some information. However, you have put your finger on a problem which is even more fundamental. Someone who speaks the minority language who shows up at an office, at an airport, anywhere, but a place where the service has to be available in both official languages, often has to wait, whereas someone from the majority language group is served immediately. As far as I'm concerned, the quality of service is not equivalent and this is not acceptable.
Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you very much.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you, we will now turn to the next intervenor.
We will hear from Senator Robichaud, followed by Senator Beaudoin and then Mr. Plamondon.
Senator Fernand Robichaud (New Brunswick, Lib.): Thank you, Joint Chairpersons. Mr. Paradis talked about the Sommet de la francophonie which will be held in Moncton in 1999. Has the Commissioner planned any programs or activities for this event? Will you be participating and, if so, how?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: It would be premature on my part to talk about the precise nature of our participation. Obviously, we are extremely interested in all that is happening in the francophonie and in Canada's role as a major contributor to the francophonie.
In some instances, we have tried to do some preventive work. Take, for example, a major construction project that you are very familiar with, Senator Robichaud, namely, the Confederation Bridge. We were informed about certain shortcomings in the service provided to the public. Guided visits on the site were provided in English only.
Other services, such as signs, for example, were not available in both languages. We found out, when the opening ceremonies were still in the planning stage, that there were some potential shortcomings. I intervened with the deputy minister and, as a result, the language aspect of the opening ceremonies was improved considerably. Consequently, the answer is yes and if we can play a useful preventative role, I would be happy to be able to do so.
Senator Fernand Robichaud: Thank you.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We owe you time.
[Translation]
Senator Fernand Robichaud: The next time.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin, please.
Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I would like to go back to the question about the airports because my curiosity has been aroused. I completely agree with Mr. Paradis that, at least ideally speaking, all of the positions in an airport should be bilingual.
You seem to be making a distinction between service and the general public. What distinction do you have in mind? As far as services are concerned, obviously we must comply with a principle of bilingualism, but what exactly do you have in mind for the public?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Let me give you two examples, Senator...
Senator Gérald Beaudoin: You yourself mentioned that it might be challenged before the courts.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I said that I may request the courts to make a ruling about this difference of opinion between myself and the Vancouver airport authorities who disclaim any responsibility toward the public at large.
Let me give you two examples. There are general announcements made to the public. If they're made in only one language, there is an element of the population whose rights are flouted.
• 1635
Exhibitions are sometimes organized in airports, Vancouver is
an example, they are intended for the public and if signs and
descriptions are provided in only one language, once again this
amounts to flouting of minority rights.
We attempted to make the airport authorities aware of their responsibilities in such circumstances but they remain unconvinced. The conflict is not yet resolved.
Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Personally, I'm inclined to think that Part VII could be interpreted more liberally than it is in certain areas and I don't think we have anything to lose by bringing this matter to the courts.
Generally speaking, Canadian courts, particularly the higher ones, are rather favourable to bilingualism. They've always given a rather generous interpretation to the Canadian Constitution when it comes to bilingualism. I think that it may be in our interest to bring this kind of matter before the courts.
In other words, if you hold one view and the airport authorities are of a different mind, and if there is a serious doubt, it may be useful to consult the courts.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes indeed, Senator. But you will agree that it was appropriate for me to ask my senior legal advisor to meet with legal counsel for the airport and come to some sort of agreement before we bring the matter to court.
Unfortunately this meeting did not have the desired results and we have each stuck to our positions. I'm therefore giving serious consideration to pursuing the question, as you suggest.
Senator Gérald Beaudoin: If necessary.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes.
Senator Gérald Beaudoin: If it isn't necessary, well then...
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes. Madam Chair, may I add some further information to the response I gave Mr. Coderre, I think, relating to the investigation of complaints.
At the outset we can perhaps make a rather simplistic distinction between easy complaints and more complex ones. In the great majority of cases the easy complaints are brought to a successful conclusion within three months. For the more complex ones, we require between 7 or 8 months on the average. That is an improvement.
Complaints that have remained active from 1993 and 1994 happen to be extremely complex and contentious ones. They involve organizations such as Air Canada and Via Rail in particular. We are now before the courts with these organizations, and more than one case involves Air Canada; that is why the files have not yet been closed. We are still waiting for the court cases to come to a conclusion. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much for that clarification.
Before we go to Mr. Plamondon, perhaps you can enlarge a little bit on the response you gave to Senator Beaudoin.
When you talk about bafoués dans leurs droits with respect to Vancouver and the application of the rights of both English and French in that milieu being the responsibility, according to the airlines, of the airlines only and the other is like contract compliance, is that what you're referring to? Or are we talking about individual rights and being not well served in your individual rights? What are you referring to specifically?
• 1640
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: There are individual rights involved because the individual comes to the counter to check in for a flight and wants to be able to check in and get information in his or her language but is not able to do so.
There's also the collective aspect of, for example, an exhibition that's put on in the airport building. An individual may complain, but there is also a community concern that the exhibition is presented in only one language.
The difference of opinion we have, as I indicated earlier, is in terms of the interpretation of the law. Is the responsibility limited to the traveller who comes to the counter or who goes to a concession to buy something? Or is it a general responsibility to the public because the public has a relationship with the airport? The airport reaches out to the public with information and so on, but if it does not do so in both languages, then it's not serving the public appropriately. It's not respecting the public.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Fine. So we're discussing the ambience here, in a sense, that promotes the value that we place as Canadians on the fact that we are a bilingual nation. Would that be an accurate assumption?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): And in
[Translation]
Part VII which says
this relates to the general environment, even if there isn't a single English or French-speaking person who goes through the doors.
What I'm interested in knowing is whether
[English]
contract compliance. I don't know how you say it in French.
In other words, say you buy or sell services to the government. You are trucking the goods and services in. You are the concessionaires. You are doing business with the federal government. That's the point. I wondered if that's what you're referring to or if it was the ambience that has the impact of sending a message of who we are as a people.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: It's all of that.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's all of the above?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes, because there is the ambience and there is the specific service, but also, by virtue of section 25 of the Official Languages Act, when a federal institution contracts with an outside party for services to be provided to the public, the federal institution has the responsibility for ensuring that the contractor will provide the services in both languages if that is the appropriate thing in that particular situation.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Which brings us to the federal government doing contracts on the transfer and devolution too—we could get back to that at another time—in the same instance.
Mr. Plamondon, I took a minute of your time.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Madam Chair. We've taken off on this subject of airports and we're now up in the air. The general image of Canada, in spite of the talk of bilingualism, is of an English-speaking country. Let me give you two concrete examples I've experienced recently.
For example, in the Canada Pavilion of Walt Disney World, they show a film in English only. I raised this matter with the minister responsible because I was surprised. As a matter of fact, I had received a letter about this from a constituent. The minister answered that these pavilions were private and that we had no authority. Still it was a funny feeling.
So those who came to Canada to make this film made an extraordinary video, extremely well-done without a single word of French. It wasn't even mentioned that there was a French-speaking community in Canada.
The other example concerns a reception I went to given by the Canadian Embassy in the United States. The most beautiful embassy in the United States is the Canadian one close to the White House. It so happened that a group of senior citizens from Quebec arrived, and they spoke only French. They showed up for a guided tour. The receptionist or hostess did not know any French. I was there at the same time and these were people I knew. I mentioned to the lady, you don't know any French. Her answer to me was: why?
• 1645
And she was working for the Canadian Embassy. So even in the
embassies they don't feel any need to project the image of a
bilingual country.
I went to Greece and we were provided with a guide for a tour. We were members of the French-Speaking Parliamentarian Association. We stopped there to pick up the guide for our guided tour. The person working at the embassy did not speak a word of French. Apparently it was not felt that there was any need for someone who knew both languages.
There's a lot of work involved in projecting a bilingual image for a country, particularly so at airports. I landed at the Dorval Airport and I forgot to pay for a particular ticket... There's a small building close to the gate. I went inside, there were five people all working in English. I'm talking about Montreal here. I introduced myself, I didn't say anything and I showed my ticket. Three of them turned around and they all spoke to me first in English. I showed my ticket and they gave me an explanation. All this took place in English.
When I asked one of the employees if she could repeat what she had just said in French, she looked quite surprised. She repeated it to me in such a way as to make me understand that I was wasting her time. She was angry about having to do it. I was in Dorval. I had just arrived on a flight of an airline known as Canada 3000. Well, the safety instructions in the back, in the toilets, and in the kitchenette, everything was in English. So I asked the attendant why all the safety instructions were in English. In the toilet the security rules were posted quite visibly and were in English only. Canada 3000.
I don't know whether you have any jurisdiction over such matters. But it indicates that if you are not continually on the watch...the staff were quite surprised and I even decided to take a picture. I'll send it to you if you want, I'm having it developed. They asked me what I was doing. I told them well it's supposed to be in both languages. It's a safety measure. It's not a matter of asking for a gin in English or French, it's a safety measure. She was quite surprised when she heard that.
So we talk about a bilingual Canada in our speeches but when it comes down to real life, it's another matter.
Let me give you another example. Before leaving for this meeting, I looked at my fax, I'd received a message from the National Press Club. Does that come under you? The National Press Club is in the building opposite. Look at the announcement of their program for the month of December. There's the name of the organization in English and French. All the rest is in English, except for the price at the bottom: member $40, membre 40 $. As for the rest, Members' Christmas Party, all of this for members of Parliament, this is from the Press Club...
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: There's a French version of it too. They have two copies. We arranged for it.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: I have only the English one.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: There's a French one. Check your office.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Okay. Thank you. If that's the case, it's okay, because my name is Louis Plamondon,
[Translation]
député de Richelieu, in French, and this is what they sent me. If they sent one out in each language, good enough, I withdraw my remarks, but I only received the one. If they sent out both, then good enough. I was surprised to see this from an organization with such close connections. So perhaps you can look into the matter.
Let me conclude my comments and come down to earth again with reference to Part VII...you made a distinction between easy complaints and complaints relating to matters of substance... for instance, I'm thinking of the French-speaking inhabitants of Saskatchewan who went to the Supreme Court about school boards. They went to the courts on the basis of an individual complaint.
But we do have Part VII to provide basic interpretation for rights. You say that the budget cutbacks will affect the work you are able to do. I wonder whether our committee should not draw this matter to the attention of Treasury Board and make the minister responsible aware of the problem so that at least a part of the surplus—now that the government can no longer hide behind the deficit, even if part of the surplus is applied to the deficit can be used to correct these near injustices by providing the necessary funding for your work and your responsibilities under Part VII.
Thank you.
• 1650
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Madam Chair, Mr. Plamondon raised several subjects. I'll attempt to provide as succinct a response as possible. First of all, there is no minister responsible for the Office of the Official Languages Commissioner. The commissioner is directly accountable to Parliament but as far as money matters are concerned, the prime minister holds this responsibility.
You referred to Part VII and its importance. The wording of Part VII is very general and gives citizens wide latitude in making complaints.
You talked about airplanes and instructions being posted in English only. Obviously this should not be the case. I realize that many airplanes are manufactured in the United States and are delivered with this information in English only but it is up to the airlines to correct this situation.
Generally speaking, the Official Languages Act does not apply to the private sector but whenever there is a problem, we attempt to determine whether a federal institution may have some responsibility in the matter and we encourage the intervention of this federal institution in order to obtain better service and better information for the public.
The active offering of service is, generally speaking, inadequate. I should note that even in Quebec, where service is widely available in English at federal offices, this service is still not actively offered. We were successful in obtaining service in 98.8% of cases but it was actively offered in only 45% of such cases.
It is even more difficult for the members of the francophone minority communities in other parts of the country. So we put a strong emphasis on the active offering of service to reflect the appropriate image of Canada.
Finally, you named two embassies where services in French were lacking. We have also received several complaints regarding embassies. We made inquiries and we are now at the follow-up stage. We have noted certain improvements but there is still something to be desired and we have noted two things, namely that there are two types of personnel in embassies. The transferred personnel which is sent from Canada and assigned to different places in the world and the personnel recruited locally. We have noted an improvement in bilingualism among the transferred personnel.
Regarding the locally recruited personnel, embassies and consulates are having a great deal of difficulty. A person must be found who speaks the language of that country and perhaps another regional language and this person must be competent in both of the official languages of Canada. This may be difficult, but this is a point that we very much insist on.
We have also noted that the pay scales are not always competitive with what you can get in other sectors in any particular country. The personnel gets recruited, stays for a limited period of time, leaves and must be replaced. We brought this to the attention of the department as we wanted the salary scales to be studied so as to be able to offer wages that will attract and keep local personnel.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would like to take half a minute to put a question. For Canada 3000, there were bilingual signs inside. But as I was saying, some were not, more specifically a sign regarding security in toilets and the ban on smoking.
• 1655
Also, in the kitchenette in the back, all the personnel was
working with directions that were written only in English.
I would like to put things into perspective and say that basically this was not a completely unilingual English situation.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you for the clarification.
Before giving the floor to Mr. Coderre, I would like to know if any other persons would like to put questions because I have exhausted my list of requests. If not, I would have a few announcements to make before we carry on.
Mr. Denis Coderre: First of all, Madam Chair, because we're talking about an airport, about transportation, and about personnel training, I would like us to consider very seriously the possibility of asking the Minister of Transportation to come here and give us some explanation of this whole question of the agreement regarding privatization. We know that with Air Canada especially, there were agreements to ensure bilingualism. This would be the first point.
The second point: contrary to my colleague Mr. Plamondon, I called the Canadian Embassy in Italy, and I was answered in French. I also called the embassy in the United States and I was also answered in French. So we might have grievances without concluding for all that that the conditions were bad everywhere and that Canada is a bad country.
On the other hand, I took a plane yesterday and I went to the toilet in French and I flushed in English. If we want to talk about security and signs, Commissioner, we should perhaps ask whether unilingual French signs in Quebec have an impact on security.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: In Quebec, within the framework of Bill 101, security matters are dealt with by using pictograms.
Mr. Denis Coderre: But I would like to go to the very end of this reasoning regarding security. I would moreover like to make a formal complaint about this, because my colleague Mr. Paradis and myself had already spoken about the situation at the Ottawa Airport and we really intend, Madam Chair, to go to the Ottawa Airport.
I would officially request that the Commissioner consider this situation, because this is after all the national capital. Perhaps more people go through Dorval, Toronto or Vancouver, but the national capital is Ottawa after all, and when arriving in Ottawa, we would expect everything to be done in both languages. I don't need to know whether the janitor is bilingual or not, but I want to make sure that for security reasons and especially for accessibility reasons, I don't have to run about to find out whether someone can speak to me in French or not. I would request, Commissioner, that you consider this request.
I'd also like to talk about the policies branch announcement that a study would be carried out on the factors influencing the use of the mother tongue in daily communications in minority environments. This study is, in my opinion, extremely important. I would like you to give me, in a summary way, the objectives of this study.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I think that the title of this study is self explanatory. We wanted to see how language is used in such situations. I could, if you wish, sir, write to you to give you a more detailed description of the contents of the study. I would be glad to do that.
Regarding the agreements for privatizing airports, I would comment in general that I feel that the agreements are not at fault but rather that their implementation leaves something to be desired. You have requested that we consider the case of the Ottawa Airport. We would be pleased to do so and will stay in touch with you and with Mr. Paradis to get the necessary information to carry out this investigation.
• 1700
We had received some complaints in the past especially
regarding security searches and we carried out an investigation and
we made some recommendations. We noted a few improvements in that
sector. But I fully agree with you, this is the airport of the
capital of this country and we will not hesitate to deal with this
case.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): As you are presently preparing this report, would you be kind enough to send it to the clerk so that we might include it for the members of the committee?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Certainly.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you.
Are there any other questions?
Yes, I do have a question.
[English]
You talked about community-based groups, particularly the French Canadian community-based groups that perhaps have a more difficult task than most of the English-language groups in maintaining the contact and stability of their communities because of their locations across the rest of Canada—the concentration of French-speaking people being, of course, in Quebec. A similar situation arises for English-speaking groups in the Gaspé, Chicoutimi, Lac Saint-Jean, and other parts of the province of Quebec outside of the greater city of Montreal region.
In the cuts that were undertaken, my concern has been the communication vehicles that hold together these communities that are generally widely spread in rural or semi-rural areas. Newspapers and radio are very key instruments of communication.
I believe the financing for that communication does not come out of your budget but out of the budget of Canadian Heritage. Is it within your purview to assess the implication and impact of cuts in those budgets, or in the allocation of those budgets? In any way, are complaints receivable by the commissioner and are investigations allowable under your mandate?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: We have maintained an active interest in the situation of community newspapers and community radio stations all across the country. I have met, for example, on several occasions with the Quebec Community Newspaper Association and examined with it its perception of fairness in support from public funds, the placing of ads by federal institutions, and so on.
When the CBC was subjected to major cuts in its funding and announced as a result changes in its programming schedule, we received a very large number of complaints, the largest number we've ever received on any one subject. We recognized the necessity for public funds to be used more sparingly.
We also recognized the right of the government to make such a decision, but we asked the CBC to pay particular attention to the interests of the minority communities across the country. That included very particularly English-speaking communities outside of Montreal. The Quebec City community had particular concerns as well as the North Shore, Gaspé, and Magdalen Islands communities.
We did not feel it was right for us to get into the details of programming and tell the CBC how it should be programming. We urged the CBC to sit down with the minority communities, listen to them, and be responsive to their concerns and need to be able to identify themselves with the programming of the CBC. I must say the CBC did that quite extensively across the country. We would have been even happier if they had done it before they announced the changes, but even though it came after the fact it did result in a number of modifications. So service was improved, restored, to suit the needs of particular communities in different parts of the country in both French and English.
• 1705
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Radio-Canada was involved as well as the CBC.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes, absolutely.
I do communicate with the Department of Canadian Heritage in regard to these issues and others as well.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Does that include the CRTC when it comes to allocating community radio wavelengths?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I have communicated with the CRTC. Obviously, I have to be respectful of the role of the CRTC in making its decisions on the basis of the considerations it has to take into account, but I have pointed out to the CRTC the particularity of the situations and needs of official language minority communities.
You will recall, and I have mentioned this before the committee on previous occasions, that when the CBC—in this instance Radio-Canada—specifically made application for a licence to put the réseaux d'information on the air, I recommended strongly to the CRTC that this be made obligatory all across Canada and the CRTC did not make that decision. As a result, we had far less effective distribution of RDI than of Newsworld, its counterpart in English.
The situation has improved. We have continued to watch it. But there are still gaps in the coverage of this country, notably for RDI. There are a few small gaps in Quebec with regard to Newsworld.
A voice: Where?
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: In the Quebec City area.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you. I recall very well the desire to have that at the lower level, on 1 to 13. We wanted that to be applied as an obligation. I'm afraid the cable companies won that debate.
If there are no more questions for Commissioner Goldbloom.... Yes, sir.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: May I add two small things?
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You may add if you wish.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: When we receive a complaint, the report we produce is not a public document. It belongs to the complainant on the one hand and the federal institution on the other. Therefore, if there is a specific complaint put to us by an individual, whether a member of Parliament or a member of the public, we have to send the report to that individual and would not be able to make it a public document. It would be up to the complainant to share it with others, if he wished.
I wanted to make that clear.
Secondly, Madam Chair—
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): One moment, please. Are you telling me I have to ask him “Please can we have the report?” for the rest of us? Is that what you're saying in English?
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): If you overcome his traditional modesty.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That's very good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: The other thing I would like to say is that I appreciate the expressions of opinion from several members of the committee regarding the need for the commissioner to have adequate resources, both monetary and human resources, to carry out the work we perceive as being necessary and I believe the committee perceives as necessary.
I will, if I may, keep the committee informed of the budgetary situation and of any initiatives I may take to seek more resources.
• 1710
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think that's the kind of note that allows me to say several things.
Firstly, with your report of last week and this week, you have enabled our steering committee—which will meet next Tuesday at this time—
[Translation]
Excuse me, I interrupted you.
[English]
It's too bad.
Next Tuesday I would ask the members of the steering committee to reread.... First of all, we will make sure that you get the blues from today's meeting before next Tuesday, delivered to your offices. You will please address those and the meeting of last week. We will look at the report that has been shared with us through the eyes of the commissioner.
I think there is much material for consideration and action within what we have heard already, for which we're going to thank you most graciously. I think we can start to determine the activities we wish to start on very shortly.
Secondly, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you very much. You have been of enormous help. You're a fountain of information that is most worth while in the part of the mandates of this government to ensure that we respect who we are as a people. We have as a very defining part of our history both the official languages as well as our multicultural reality. I think it's a very exciting moment to be able to look at what's being done, know we have a road map and a target to head for, and hopefully make sure things happen and improve along the way.
I'm sure we will be calling on you, either through the steering committee and asking you for help there or certainly back to this table.
In the meantime, we wish you a very healthy and good holiday season, which will be coming up shortly. Let's hope that you are able to meet the demands that are being made upon you.
Thank you kindly.
Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): To the committee, just one thing: the Honourable Marcel Massé will be here on Tuesday, December 9, at 3.30 p.m. We are still waiting to hear from Ms. Copps, who should confirm that she will appear before Christmas.
Thank you very much.