[Translation]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
• 1534
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)): Order please, ladies and gentlemen.
I must say, Mr. Plamondon, that we are delighted to have you back with us this afternoon.
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(7), we continue our study of the 2000-2001 Estimates, Part III, Report on Plans and Priorities, Vote 25, Privy Council, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
I'd like to begin by welcoming Ms. Adam, the recently appointed Commissioner of Official Languages. Would you be so kind as to start by introducing the people who are with you. Before we begin, for the benefit of my colleagues, I would just like to say that the Commissioner's presentation will be in two parts. First, we will focus on the order of the day, namely consideration of the estimates and this part of the meeting will be open to the public. At the conclusion of the first hour, we will retire to meet in camera, at which time the Commissioner will continue with part two of her presentation. Finally, I would appreciate it if all members could remain so that we can discuss the future business of the committee. I would also like your opinion on our agenda for the period after Easter up until the end of the session. That about does it for today's agenda.
• 1535
Please proceed, Commissioner.
Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages): I'll start by introducing my colleagues. With me are Michel Robichaud, Director General, Investigations Branch; Gérard Finn, Director General, Policy and Communications Branch; and Johane Tremblay, Director, Legal Services.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Before you go any further, I'd like to apologize for the fact that your name tags are not yet ready. They've been ordered to enable everyone to easily identify you. Thank you.
Ms. Dyane Adam: May I proceed, Ms. Folco?
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): By all means.
Ms. Dyane Adam: First of all, it is a pleasure for me to appear once again before this committee. This afternoon, I've chosen to make a more lively visual presentation. I have to admit that my objective was to make my presentation a little more interesting. I realize that you hear from many witnesses and a visual presentation is one way for me to keep to the time allotted to me.
I believe you have received copies of the presentation.
A voice: No, we haven't.
Ms. Dyane Adam: I thought they had been distributed. Of course, we have a French and English version available.
On the screen you will note the six objectives of my presentation. Firstly, I want to follow up on my appearance of November 30 last. Secondly, I want to provide a brief report on my first eight months in office.
I don't know if that still makes me a recently appointed commissioner, Ms. Folco, but be that as it may, I would like to report briefly on the studies and reports published, on the studies in progress and on targeted interventions.
I will also be discussing the federal government's performance with respect to the implementation of the Official Languages Act.
I will also be talking about the measures already taken to increase still further the effectiveness and efficiency of the Office of the Commissioner and outlining changes anticipated for the Annual Report 1999-2000.
Lastly, I will be reporting on some areas where progress is warranted and on some challenges which need to be met.
[English]
To follow up on the appearance of November 30, 1999, I'd like to highlight the importance of consultation in order to develop dialogue in partnerships.
Some of you may know that I am currently conducting consultations across Canada with representatives of the official language communities as well as the principal federal participants in implementing the Official Languages Act. I am doing this in order to get a good sense of what's happening out there in the institutions, in the communities. I want to seek direct input from these particular individuals and establish very soon and very early in my mandate that our interventions will be rooted and grounded in the current realities. I think this will be a signature of my ways of dealing and working.
• 1540
The second point is to prioritize a proactive approach. By
the nature of its mandate, OCOL, or my office, will
naturally intervene in a reactive mode. We receive
complaints, we instruct, and we give
recommendations. We need to keep doing this, but I
must say we need to diversify our approach. I will go
further into that later.
After 30 years, the results of the implementation of the Official Languages Act are not that great. We need to look at the different approaches we have used in the past and work at that. My office will be looking at different ways to be more proactive. Air Canada was certainly one dossier that was led in that way.
The third point is to identify horizontal problems or challenges, such as the Internet, devolutions, and not just working at putting out fires. In the case of the Government of Canada and the Internet, we did take this dossier, which I think is very key to the future of linguistic duality in Canada, we did a study and really moved forward on the agenda. We pushed the government to invest in the area of the Internet and to ensure that both linguistic groups and languages will be present there and that the two communities can develop themselves on that new space. I will speak to that a bit later.
Finally, I will report on the status of implementation of the Official Languages Act by the federal government and suggest here strategic approaches to facilitate change. I'll speak a bit more on that later.
[Translation]
I will now provide a brief report on the first eight months and look at some of the studies that have been published. As I mentioned earlier, one of the first things I did when I took office in August was to publish an initial study, The Government of Canada and French on the Internet, in which we emphasized the urgency of more targeted action by the Government of Canada to increase French content on the Internet. As you know, the government responded favourably to this study on December 1, 1999 and arranged for structures to implement our recommendations. It struck a committee of deputy ministers responsible for official languages, as well as an interdepartmental working group on French on the Internet.
We also released at the same time a second study entitled Use of the Internet by Federal Institutions, which looks at the quality of French on federal Web sites. In this study, we focused on the importance of assigning equal status, quantitatively as well as qualitatively, to both official languages. Vigilance in this area is truly important. We have observed that on certain federal Web sites, the quality of the French, whether it be the spelling or the translation, could stand to be improved.
• 1545
Last week, I released the eleventh in a series of 13 follow-up
reports on designated bilingual points of service in each province.
Quebec was the focus of the eleventh report, while the two reports
expected in April will cover Ontario and British Columbia. This
series of reports should wrap up with a summary in the annual
report. I can come back to this later, if you wish.
[English]
What studies are in progress that are to be published soon? We are currently doing a study on high-performance sports. The equality of opportunities is one of the founding principles of Canada. In economic terms, it takes the form of equalization. This equality of opportunities must be reflected in all sectors of society with respect to French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians. Our study of high-performance sports will show whether there is real equality of opportunity for the two linguistic groups in this field and, if necessary, recommend corrective measures. We should publish it in late May or early June.
The second study that is currently in progress is a study on the factors that could promote more enrolment in French schools by right-holders, ayants-droit, under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The school is the most important institution after the family for the transmission of values and culture. The fight against assimilation of the official language minorities requires quality education in the minority language. Our study will try to identify ways of encouraging enrolment of larger numbers of eligible pupils in French schools under section 23 of the charter. It should be published in May, pretty soon.
Finally, we have a study on the methods of providing services that involve the cooperation of the communities themselves. This study is linked to the larger problem of the governmental transformation and its negative impact on the linguistic rights of Canadians. You will remember that it was in response to OCOL's report in 1998, the report on governmental transformation and linguistic rights, that the government issued a report in 1999 that was to be its response to our initial report. The Fontaine report was the response of the government to our own study.
One of the recommendations in the Fontaine report indicated the importance of involving the communities themselves in the provision of services. These methods of providing services will in fact be explored in the study. We're trying to help out here and trying to ensure that the recommendations in the Fontaine report will be followed through by the institutions and government.
[Translation]
I would now like to discuss with you our targeted interventions, the first of which concerns the Contraventions Act. Legal action was taken pursuant to Part X of the act involving the Commissioner and the Department of Justice. I spoke about this when I first appeared before the committee. Questions in dispute concern Part IV respecting service to the public, and Part VII respecting community support. We continue to actively pursue this matter and we should be back in court in October 2000. I wish to remind committee members that in dispute is the devolution to the provinces and municipalities by the federal government of various responsibilities and that too often, such action is taken without regard to linguistic rights. We will be debating federal government responsibilities with respect to the transfer of powers. The Commissioner's office maintains that when such transfers occur, linguistic rights must be upheld.
• 1550
Our second targeted intervention involved Air Canada and its
regional affiliates. We want to ensure that the new legislation
clearly spells out the obligations of Air Canada and its
affiliates, as well as those of new regional carriers acquired as
a result of a merger. We want to compel all carriers affiliated
with Air Canada to provide adequate services in both official
languages, whether reservation or inflight services or services at
the airport and in the media. This is one example of the proactive
approach taken by the Commissioner's office since the whole issue
of reform in the airline industry first came up. We have made our
point on several occasions to Minister Collenette, who has seemed
quite receptive to our position. We have worked closely with his
department to ensure that the linguistic rights of Canadians are
preserved during the reform process.
Another targeted intervention involved promoting the preservation of the acquired rights of the English community in Quebec and in particular, increasing its participation in the federal public service in Quebec. It's well known that in Montreal in particular, several institutions support the growth of the English community in Quebec and these have been the envy of Francophone communities outside Quebec. As Quebec undergoes health care reform, it's important that it does not lose ground in terms of service delivery. We realize that this is one of the concerns of this community at the present time. Of course, we have yet to achieve the objective in terms of the participation rate of Anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec, although outside Quebec, the targets have been met.
Another intervention consisted of defending the continued existence of Hôpital Montfort as a French-language health services centre. This struggle is very important to the Franco-Ontarian community and indeed to all Francophone communities outside Quebec. It is a struggle that greatly needs our support.
Another targeted intervention was aimed at guaranteeing services in both official languages further to the municipal amalgamations announced in various parts of the country. Amalgamation is already under way in some municipalities, notably Ottawa and Sudbury. The case of Ottawa has probably generated the most interest. I'll come back to this when I focus on leadership and the challenges that lie ahead. In my opinion, given that Ottawa is the capital of Canada, amalgamation represents a major challenge for federal leaders and politicians.
[English]
Towards better leadership: We have quite a distance to go. That's my assessment after eight months in office. Each year the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages receives a large number of complaints, particularly about problems related to language of service, which is 80% of all complaints. This is almost a mirror image of the results linked to the series of follow-up reports of designated bilingual offices across the country.
• 1555
If you look at
the performance of our offices based on the different
studies done by the commissioner, those 13 reports
are quite revealing, except for the National Capital
Commission and Quebec.
If I was grading the performance of our different
provinces and institutions that were assessed, none of
them would have an A+ mark. The capital region,
Ottawa, and the Province of Quebec are more in the A
and B+ range. After that, in the delivery
of human services, it's really insufficient and at
times poor, and it really needs improvement.
So we will look and analyse further as soon as we finish the series of studies, and we will provide guidance and recommendations in our annual report with regard to what we should do. I think we will go beyond just recommendations. We may even try to be more specific in our recommendations than we have been in the past so that this situation can be at least redressed or we can do our role to improve in this respect.
The other issue that really needs to be worked at is French as a language of work. It's frequently not respected in the departments and central agencies, particularly those with an economic orientation in Ottawa. I met most of the deputy ministers on an individual basis to find out from their perspective what was the key challenge for them. I think if there is one unanimous view, it is that language of work has not basically improved, except in some departments. But, generally speaking, we really need to prioritize that and do some intervention and major improvements in that area.
Finally, the national capital still does not have the official status as a bilingual city. This is definitely a problem.
I want to go faster because I realize I may be taking too much time. I will come to Ottawa later.
[Translation]
The Office of the Commissioner is seeking to increase its effectiveness and efficiency and, as I already noted, it is undergoing a restructuring and review process. As part of the consultation launched, we will be reviewing our approaches and seeking input from our clients, that is from federal institutions, official language communities and their representatives. We will be prioritizing our resources and making the required organizational changes at the Office of the Commissioner. I've already ordered some changes, namely the elimination of one branch. Restructuring, however, will be a lengthy process.
At the start of my presentation, I mentioned that we plan to favour a proactive approach in order to play a greater role as ombudsman, mediator, promoter and agent of change. Our role as watchdog for citizens and linguistic rights must be maintained.
• 1600
We will try to simply the process for handling complaints.
Some of those who have filed complaints have said that the delays
encountered are too long and that they would have liked to see
disputes settled much faster. We are looking into this to see how
we could simplify the process, while continuing to do a thorough,
professional job.
We will also be adopting different results-based intervention strategies. In my view, it's important that we achieve some concrete results and that we make some changes. The job of the Commissioner's office is to ensure that federal institutions implement the legislation, that the linguistic rights of Canadians are respected and that assistance is provided from time to time to our institutions to help them fulfil this mandate. We are not responsible as such for implementing the act, but rather for ensuring that federal institutions implement it. I will explore every possible way of seeing that our federal institutions comply with all of the act's provisions. We are looking to diversify our intervention strategies and to operate as efficiently as possible.
Briefly, in so far as our budget is concerned, at the close of fiscal year 1998-1999, we carried over some funds to the next fiscal year. Our budget for fiscal year 1999-2000 is the same as for the previous year. I appreciate that fact because it provides us with the manoeuvring room required to implement the organizational changes in progress.
With a view to increasing efficiency at the Office of the Commissioner, sometime in the next few months, we will be making a submission to Treasury Board to pursue new methods of complaint handling and to become a model user of the information and communications technologies. When I assumed this position, I noted that the Office of the Commissioner lagged far behind in terms of new technologies. I came from the academic community, where we were accustomed to providing services to 60,000 people with access to a full range of information on the net, to chat lines and so forth. The Office of the Commissioner does not have the IT resources it needs to reach out to communities and in particular to young people. It does not have the technological resources to accomplish everything it wants to accomplish, or even to establish more powerful technological links between Ottawa and the five regional offices. I'd like us to work toward the same goal that the government has set for the year 2004, namely to be able to deliver services over the Internet to all Canadians, coast to coast. It is very important for us to get fully involved in this initiative and to strive to meet this objective. I intend to move in this direction, but first, we need to update the technology employed by the Commissioner's office.
I will have an opportunity to discuss the contents of the annual report with you
[English]
in an in camera session and get your suggestions, recommendations, or whatever you may have to say with respect to the proposed changes in our annual report. I already informed you earlier in the mandate that it will now be published on a fiscal year basis and that we will in that sense be better synchronized with the planning cycle of government activities. So our next report, for 1999-2000, covering 15 months, should be out in September or October 2000, but the next ones after that will cover only a 12-month period.
• 1605
We want the annual report to be a more succinct
diagnostic tool designed to promote the changes
required to implement the Official Languages Act. We
want it to not exceed fifty pages—it's about three
times that right now—and to be focused on results.
Also, we want the report to focus on the strategic
issues that dominated the commissioner's activities
during the year. We will be reporting on what we do,
not what we see.
Finally, the report should also be an overview of the interventions by the commissioner's office. We want it to be addressed to the members of Parliament and the general public, and we want it to provide an update on Canadian linguistic reform. We want this to be a tool that is used and read. Right now, based on what I've heard, it's not read—and if so, by very few people.
So I welcome your comments on the annual report and anything you might suggest to make it a more useful tool to you as members of Parliament and senators.
Finally,
[Translation]
I would now like to discuss the challenges to be met. In my view, the biggest challenge we face is getting the federal government to reiterate its commitment to official languages. I will say it again: the Official Languages Act was enacted 30 years ago. When I took office, the media and the Canadian public pressed me about Trudeau and his vision of bilingualism. It's rather amazing that 30 years after the passage of the legislation, people continue to look to the father of bilingualism in Canada. I'm not saying that we must deny this paternity, but I do think that this is merely one indication of the fact that we must renew the dialogue on official languages. Everyone must be involved in this process, including, of course, you the politicians and leaders.
Another thing is clear: Canada has changed in the last 30 years. Today, our country is undergoing radical changes and transformations. It is dealing with globalization, the Internet and the new economy. Bilingualism has grown over the past three decades. Other factors of note include immigration and demographic diversity.
In light of this new context, the government must give some serious thought to the importance that should be assigned to official languages. Currently, you are reviewing draft immigration legislation. Has any thought been given to the impact of this bill on official languages? When the Air Canada legislation was being developed, care was taken to give consideration to this matter. That's what I call renewed leadership on the part of the federal government.
The government must better serve Canadians in both official languages, particularly by taking advantage of new information and communications technologies. This is one positive change that can help to promote full recognition of both linguistic groups and equal status for both languages and ensure that we reach the residents of our isolated communities. We now have ways of accessing our minority communities that did not exist five or ten years ago.
The Office of the Commissioner will be monitoring very closely the growth of the Internet, including how government uses this tool and how it integrates the notion of the value of official languages in Industry Canada's new technologies program or the Government on the Internet program. Again, in my opinion, it's important to have a strategy framework that takes into consideration the value of a country's linguistic duality in the decision-making process.
• 1610
I also alluded to the fact that the government must take care
to foster genuine equity with regard to language of work by
ensuring that federal managers create a climate conducive to the
use of both official languages. It's critical that French become a
common language of work in the federal workplace in Ottawa. We
still have some way to go to before this becomes a reality. New
ways must be devised to train managers to be aware of the
complexity of managing linguistic duality in their work
environment. This is not just a question of criteria, but a
question of human relations, of vertical relationships and of
relations between minority and majority groups. Until such time as
this issue is addressed, progress will be stalled. Priority must be
given to this matter and leadership must be demonstrated.
Another challenge we face is to help strengthen official language communities by fully implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act, based on a genuine renewed awareness of the rights and needs of these communities. We must go beyond the action plans in Part VII. As my predecessor Victor Goldbloom once said, federal departments and institutions must develop pavlovian response mechanisms. If this isn't integrated into our culture, we end up responding after the fact and when that happens, the results are never very good. Politicians, the government and the Prime Minister must reaffirm that linguistic duality goes to the very heart of Canadian society.
In the course of the consultations that I have undertaken, I have already met with over 30 groups and before I'm done, I hope to meet with nearly 50 groups in all. I've traveled to all provinces in Atlantic and Western Canada. I'm currently making the rounds in Quebec and Ontario. Representatives of groups from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon came to see me while I was in the West because unfortunately, I wasn't able to go to them.
The one thing that both linguistic groups agree on is that the City of Ottawa, Canada's capital, must be bilingual. Canadians have shared with us their high expectations and their desire to see federal authorities, including the Prime Minister, the federal government and its institutions, show strong, forceful leadership on this issue and not waver. Canadians want our country's linguistic duality to be successfully acknowledged and want ongoing progress on this front. Ottawa, a bilingual city, is highly symbolic of this quest.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Commissioner. Your vision of the future is gratifying indeed. Your predecessor has certainly paved the way for you and I wish you the best of luck as you undertake this program of rejuvenation and renewal.
Before I go to the first round of questions, since it's already 4:20 p.m., I'd like to remind members that they will have only five minutes, and not seven, to give everyone a chance to put questions to the Commissioner and her team. We'll follow up with a second round of questions.
Mr. Hill.
• 1615
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Thanks very much, and thank you for being here.
You have spoken forcefully about the new City of Ottawa becoming officially bilingual. Would you say that the National Capital Region should be officially bilingual?
Ms. Dyane Adam: Well, I would say it's the capital of Canada that is important.
Mr. Grant Hill: The capital region, including Hull and Aylmer?
Ms. Dyane Adam: Well, the capital of Canada, as far as I'm concerned, is Ottawa, unless we move in the direction they have in Washington, D.C., where we'd have a district, and then you could extend beyond Ottawa. But right now, the capital of Canada, in people's minds, is Ottawa.
Mr. Grant Hill: So the answer is no, Hull and Aylmer should not be officially bilingual. Is that correct?
Ms. Dyane Adam: No, not in that context, unless we change it and make it a bilingual district.
Mr. Grant Hill: All right.
I stand back and look at the official language issue from the standpoint of success, and I would like to lay out two statistics between 1971 and 1996 from Statistics Canada.
Outside Quebec, regarding the home language, francophones have decreased in Canada from 4.3% to 2.9%. In the same period of time, inside Quebec, anglophones have decreased from 14.7% to 10.8%. The whole purpose of this law, this act, this activity, and your office is to promote and protect the vitality of official language minority communities, and on both scores, statistically,
[Translation]
the process is a failure. I'd like to hear your views on the subject.
[English]
Ms. Dyane Adam: Those numbers are quite misleading at times. You're quite right that proportionately French speakers outside Quebec did go down, and the same in English. But if we talk about the French-speaking population, the numbers basically stayed the same. We're still at the same number. It's the proportion that's changed.
In my presentation I talked briefly about immigration. If Canada is accepting larger and larger numbers of immigrants, which is what has been happening over the past years, and is not integrating any immigrants in the minority communities—I'm talking here especially about the French-speaking minority communities—it's inevitable that this number percentage-wise will always go down, because we are not renewing ourselves fertility-wise in either the English-speaking or French-speaking population. Immigration is a major factor here that we need to consider.
Also, when you speak about failure, I would agree with you that we need to sustain and invest more in the initiatives that allow our communities to be vitalized and developed. For example, our minority communities outside Quebec still need to go to the courts to get their schools built. And despite the Charter of Rights, despite the legislation, we have not provided the provinces, in this case, the tools and the institutions that these communities need to fully support and sustain them. So it's not a failure, but I will say that what it tells us is we haven't done enough.
Mr. Grant Hill: Let me just go to one other issue.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'm sorry, Mr. Hill, we'll have to cut you off. Perhaps we'll get a second turn and you'll be able to ask your question then.
• 1620
[Translation]
Go ahead, Mr. Plamondon. I remind you that you have five minutes, so please leave some time for the Commissioner to respond.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Thank you, Ms. Adam, for coming here. I have to wonder if you were in compliance with the Official Languages Act in projecting unilingual slides, whether in French or in English. In my opinion, these slides should have been shown at the same time in both languages. I hope you will proceed that way next time around.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Your point is duly noted.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you. You gave a nice speech and stated a number of noble principles. However, every time a Commissioner of Official Languages appears before the committee, it's always... The message always differs. Your thinking seems to be rather avant-garde. The government's response, however, regardless of the party in power, is always very mitigated. The fact of the matter is that in Canada, business is conducted in English, despite what one would have us believe.
Let me give you a few little examples. For instance, I wrote to you concerning some bids. The federal government clearly stipulated in the invitation to tender that the bidder shall deliver a draft of the final report, which shall include a summary in both official languages. However, the government goes on to request that a description of the work to be carried out be provided in English, along with a detailed review and findings in English as well as charts and graphs and other useful explanations, together with a list of resource persons and references, all to be provided in English. The bidder does not have the right to use his first language. I wrote to you about this and to my surprise, you advised me that the government was acting correctly.
I wrote to you again, this time about National Defence. Here again, an architectural firm interested in doing a study of Canada's architectural heritage read in the invitation to tender that all documents were to be submitted in English.
I've also been informed that the Canadian Forces were scheduled to give some engineering courses. Half of the people who have registered for these courses are francophones. Courses will be given solely in English from May 29 to August 11 and from August 21 to February 2, 2001 in Gagetown, Ontario.
Senator Louis-J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): Gagetown is in Ontario?
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes. A military engineering course.
Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: Gagetown is in New Brunswick.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'm not certain whether it's in Ontario. That's what the letter says, but that's not the point.
Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: You must be talking about another city.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: No, I guess it's not the right city.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst): Most likely it's not.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Then I apologize for the mix-up. Thank you, Senator Robichaud, for pointing out to me that Gagetown is located in a different province. The point I was attempting to make is that 50 per cent of the students who have registered for this course, which will be given in English only, are francophones.
Earlier, you spoke about Air Canada. Last year, I lodged a complaint because a course intended for Air Canada pilots and flight attendants, 97 per cent of whom were francophones, was being given in Montreal in English only. All of the books supplied were in English only as well. The exam was the exception. Therefore, when you state that we live in a bilingual country and that we... You said some nice things in your presentation, but in reality, the situation is different. I could give you a number of other examples.
I want you to see that business in Canada really isn't conducted in both languages, but rather in English. Mind you, I see nothing unusual about that. It's your country and your language. It's normal that business be conducted in English. It's just that reality contradicts the principles that you have stated.
There's one last thing that surprises me and it will be the focus of my question. The Speaker of the House of Commons signed a memorandum of understanding with you stating that he wanted nothing to do with official languages in relation to committee work. He actually said this. The month he left office in 1999, your predecessor Mr. Goldbloom signed a memorandum of understanding with Gilbert Parent to head off a dispute between the Speaker's office and the Commissioner of Official Languages.
• 1625
In the memorandum of understanding, the Speaker of the House
noted that whereas the Speaker of the House is of the opinion that
in light of the privileges and immunities of the House, the
expression “the institutions of Parliament” which appears in
section 3 of the Official Languages Act, applies only to the
administration of House of Commons business, and not to the work of
the House and its committees. In the same memorandum, the
Commissioner notes that whereas... In fact, he states the opposite
over the course of three paragraphs, but that to avoid any
argument, he was prepared to go along with this agreement.
Therefore, even the Speaker of the House questions the usefulness of official languages.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Your five minutes are up, Mr. Plamondon.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Fine. My question...
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): You won't have a chance to put a question to the witness this time around. You have used up your five minutes, and more.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Joint Chair, I'm just a little fed up with these one-hour meetings, like the one we had last week with Minister Alan Rock. If we were to meet from 7 p.m. until midnight, we would have enough time to thoroughly explore the subject matter. Better still, we could convene at 9 a.m., just like the Official Languages committee used to do. Back then, we had an opportunity to hold a real discussion. Now, all we have time to do is save face before heading off to attend to other business.
It's always the same old story. This committee has done nothing for the past two years but listen to witnesses, voice some pious wishes and then, adjourn.
Fine then. I'm happy that I've said what I had to say. My turn is up. By all means move on to the next person.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'm sorry, Mr. Plamondon, but you've had six minutes. I regret having...
Mr. Louis Plamondon: First, we were allowed 10 minutes. Now, you've changed the rules and we are even more pressed for time.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'm just doing my job, sir.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: No, you're not.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): That's why I'm sitting in this chair. May I remind you that you were told, along with everyone else, that you would have five minutes to put a question. I can't make an exception in your case, if I'm not prepared to make the same concession to others.
Moving now to the next person.
Mr. Robichaud, are you taking Senator Gauthier's place?
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): I think we should let the Commissioner respond to the Member's statements and concerns. It's all well and good to stick to the five-minute rule, but it's a little ridiculous.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Certainly, I'd like to hear the Commissioner respond, but...
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I think the Member has raised some important issues and I'd like the Commissioner to respond to them. Otherwise, what are we accomplishing here?
Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: I totally agree with you. I think we can allow the Commissioner a few minutes to respond to the questions.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Excuse me, but I'd like to say something here. Of course the Commissioner is here to meet with us and we want to hear what she has to say. However, I would appreciate it if the members of the committee could limit the amount of time they take to ask questions. The shorter the questions, the more time we will have for answers. That's all I'm saying.
Now then, Ms. Adam, the floor is yours. You can go ahead and answer Mr. Plamondon's questions.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Mr. Plamondon commented on two things. First, he pointed to the fact that right now, our federal institutions are far from being bilingual, and I can't disagree with him on this. I believe I said more or less the same thing.
However, the real question concerned the memorandum of understanding. You are correct in saying that there is indeed a memorandum of understanding, signed by my predecessor, between the House of Commons and the Office of the Commissioner, one that gives a different interpretation to the application of the act. We could have settled this dispute in a confrontational fashion, which would have been pointless because, according to the responsible House official, the Commissioner's jurisdiction is limited to handling complaints having to do with the administration of the House, and not with the activities and procedures of the House and its committees. The Office of the Commissioner held, and continues to hold, a different view of things, but in order for the Office of the Commissioner to process complaints concerning committee work, my predecessor agreed on a certain course of action. The House of Commons, or its Speaker, receives complaints concerning committee or House activities, gathers all related information and then forwards everything to us. It does some of the investigative work for us. We pursue the investigation and make our recommendations.
Therefore, you are quite correct. However, the intent is to investigate complaints that have been made. Our authority remains intact. We investigate and produce a report, while respecting the Speaker's wishes as set out in the memorandum which spells out the roles of each party. The Speaker's role is to intervene to deal with committees and Parliament, instead of having the Commissioner get involved.
• 1630
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Ms. Adam.
Senator Robichaud, Senator Gauthier had asked to be recognized. If I understand correctly, you would like to put the question for him, since he's already left. No?
Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: No.
The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): He will be speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Fine. Go ahead.
Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: I was struck by something you said, Commissioner. I can't recall whether you said it in English or in French.
[English]
but you said that “language of work has not basically improved, except in some departments”.
[Translation]
Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.
Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: Why is it that we have seen improvements in only certain departments in terms of language of work or bilingualism? Is it because, as I have always suspected, one person can make a big difference, even in a large environment? Is that the reason why in some departments, the improvements have been greater than in others?
Ms. Dyane Adam: Frankly, in order to answer your question, I would need to look at more studies. I'm not trying to avoid your question. Certainly, leadership plays a part in it. If the deputy minister does not project an image that favours bilingualism, if, during management committee meetings, he only speaks English, which discourages people from speaking both languages, then he's not setting a good example. It's important for the leadership to integrate these objectives with those of the department.
Certain entities, such as the Public Service Commission, function fairly well in both languages. And certainly in some departments, where because of cultural... I say “certainly” because that's how things appear to be at first glance. We need to take a closer look at the situation and our office will do that with a view to making some concrete suggestions and specific recommendations. It's not enough to merely acknowledge that there is a problem with language of work. The diagnosis is in and the time has come to adopt action strategies, something to which my office will now turn its attention.
Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: Thank you for that answer.
I would now like to bring up a totally different subject. This incident, which occurred recently, concerns my province. I'm referring to the dispute between the RCMP and perhaps the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I heard some rather disturbing news yesterday, the day before yesterday, and the day before that.
Could you enlighten me about this case?
Ms. Dyane Adam: Certainly. I wanted to mention it in my presentation, but I didn't get around to it.
First of all, for the benefit of those committee members who are not familiar with this case, approximately one year ago, seven complaints were lodged over the linguistic designation of positions at the RCMP detachment in New Brunswick. The complaint was rather complicated , given the reorganization under way, which could have an impact on all provinces in Atlantic Canada.
An interim report was released in July 1999. The Office of the Commissioner took the following approach. It asked the complainants and parties involved, including the RCMP, to draft a report. Comments were gathered. Those of the complainants and the RCMP alike were reviewed over a five-month period. By December, we had a complete file of comments.
• 1635
We spent all of January and February analysing these comments
and found that the parties involved held diametrically opposed
views. I therefore decided to consult the parties once again, that
is both the complainants and the RCMP, in an effort to see whether
any conciliation was possible.
What did I mean by conciliation? What could be done to allow for an open exchange of views between the parties? I know that my actions were misinterpreted by the complainants. As you know, some had expected a legal form of mediation, that is negotiations of some sort. They said they were not prepared to negotiate language rights and they were perfectly right to say that.
We proposed that some changes be initiated to allow for an exchange of views and alternative solutions that are in keeping with the act. It is out of the question for the Office of the Commissioner to endorse solutions that violate the act.
Before I put any of this down in a final report or letter, I believe it's very important to ensure that the parties are amenable to such an approach.
Unfortunately, there was some confusion. After analysing the reactions, I have to chalk this up to two things: first, the complainants were concerned, some more than others. They were wondering if, after one year, the RCMP wasn't actually moving forward with its plan and if the whole matter wouldn't simply be botched before the Commissioner's office had a chance to table its report. They were concerned that the RCMP would proceed against their wishes.
The complainants were therefore worried and insisted on seeing the final report. They were rather impatient, to the point where one of them even refused to meet with us and spoke to the media instead, although he didn't even know what we were proposing. That's unfortunate, but that's life. We can't control people's attitudes.
The other problem was my team's use of the word “mediation”. Admittedly, my background is in another field. I'm not a legal expert and “mediation” meant something entirely different to me. Immediately people thought that mediation implied some negotiation of rights. That raised many questions.
Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: Certain things aren't negotiable.
Ms. Dyane Adam: That's right, but people interpreted this differently. The use of the word created some confusion and the situation quickly degenerated, as you all know.
Let me assure you of one thing: we never intended for this to happen. However, this was indicative of the approach favoured by my office and by me, namely to facilitate change, and maybe even to do things a little differently than in the past. Instead of releasing a final report and checking three or six months later on the RCMP's follow-up actions, we want to be certain that it works with the complainants and listens to them to gain a clear understanding of their position and their rights. In other words, we want the parties to work together to find a solution.
I'm not just thinking about this complaint. I'm looking to the future. If the complainants and the RCMP can't manage to work out their differences, they will always be opposing each other. They need to initiate a dialogue in order to settle their differences and forge a new relationship for the future. The RCMP would then be more mindful of the needs of linguistic groups in the decision-making process. For me, this is an especially important consideration.
I'm sorry, Ms. Folco. You seem to have cut me more slack than you have your colleagues.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I feel a little like the bad guy here at this meeting.
Ms. Dyane Adam: I'll stop here.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Listen, I think we have a bit of a logistical problem.
Ms. Dyane Adam: The fault, if any, is mine.
The Joint Chair: No, no. I'm not blaming anyone.
Ms. Dyane Adam: I expected to go over the time allotted.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): It's no one's fault. I simply want to point out to committee members that it's nearly 4:45 p.m., that there are two parts to this meeting and that the bell is going to start ringing at 5:15 to call members to the House for a vote at 5:30 p.m. Therefore, I'd like to hear members suggestions as to what I should do.
• 1640
I have the names of three more committee members who have
questions for the Commissioner, namely Senator Rivest, Mr. Godin
and Mr. Chrétien. If there are no objections, I will let these
three individuals put their questions and, although I appreciate
that it won't be easy, we'll try to wrap up this part of the
meeting at 4:45 p.m. so that we can proceed to discuss future
business. I apologize, Commissioner, but in light of the decision
reached by committee members, our clerks have their work cut out
for them. It's important that we discuss future business. If there
are no objections, that's what I'm proposing we do.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Well, I object.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'm listening.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: I have a scheduling problem. I was in my riding this morning and I wasn't even aware that we had a meeting scheduled for today. That's why I didn't arrive on time.
I'd like to make a further suggestion.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): That's why we're having this discussion, Mr. Plamondon.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Why not discuss future business after the votes have been held, say around 6 p.m.? This would give us ample time to review your proposal thoroughly.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Does anyone have a problem with our reconvening after 6 p.m. in this room to continue the meeting?
Mr. Louis Plamondon: We could meet for half an hour.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Some people are indicating to me that this isn't possible for them and I can't force them to accept your proposal.
The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I also have other commitments.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): We're wasting our time discussing the schedule, rather than the business at hand. Therefore, I'm going to recognize these three members for questions. I would ask Ms. Adam to respond as succinctly as possible and at 4:55 p.m., we will proceed to discuss the future business of the committee.
Please proceed, Senator Rivest.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Thank you, Madam Joint Chair.
Commissioner, let me start by saying that I fully support your position. When you took office, you were right to criticize the lack of obvious political leadership when it came to supporting Canada's linguistic duality.
Clearly, federal political parties are very wary of this whole issue. A new right has emerged in Canada and everyone is talking about what Reformers, or their successors, the members of the Canadian Alliance, are saying. Far be it for me to shatter your illusions, but since elections are not far off, I doubt that we will see the end result of this heartfelt commitment on your part. That's the reality of politics, at the federal as well as at the provincial level. Former Ontario premiers Bill Davis, David Peterson or Bob Rae would have resolved these problems with Ottawa long ago. However, Premier Harris is now in office. Canada is changing and we have to be realistic.
My question concerns the Fontaine report and the one drafted by Senator Simard of New Brunswick, specifically, the lack of internal leadership at the administration level. Everyone seems to be passing the buck. I'm sure you know what I mean.
Ms. Dyane Adam: I most certainly do.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: When a department manages its staff inefficiently, Treasury Board comes down hard. When it manages its buildings poorly, it must contend with the wrath of the Department of Public Works. However, when it comes to official languages, everyone does his own thing, and no one makes demands. Everyone wants better leadership and a minister responsible for official languages to be appointed, along with senior officials to oversee official language matters. I've been in politics for many years and we're always dealing with the same things. The Minister of Canadian Heritage gives a nice little talk to the committee, while another minister does something else. We're constantly told that this comes under someone else's jurisdiction. There is an acknowledged leadership void.
As part of your review process, aside from pressing for clear political leadership on this front - and I congratulate you on having the courage to do that - I would advise you to recommend that the government appoint a minister to support you in your endeavours, a minister who would go to bat for you. You have some work to do, but you have no political support. I simply wanted to state that for the record.
Ms. Dyane Adam: I think you're quite right. I've personally met with all of the deputy ministers and I've spent a great deal of time discussing their leadership with them. I asked them what my office could do. Of course, in many cases, my initial visit was more along the lines of a courtesy call, but I intend to spend a lot of time with them because there is much to be done. My predecessor had identified these shortcomings, just as you have. Moreover, these have been mentioned in all of the reports. Now we need to determine what we need to do to get on the right track to ensure the well-being of this linguistic duality. There's work to be done with the departments.
• 1645
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: With the Privy Council.
Ms. Dyane Adam: With the Privy Council and with Treasury Board.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Ms. Adam. I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Godin.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Joint Chair. Since time is of the essence, I will put my question directly to the Commissioner. I was happy to hear your comments about the RCMP, although I still have some concerns. As you know, a problem involving the RCMP has arisen in New Brunswick.
You pointed out that we have yet to resolve all of the problems that have afflicted our country for the past 30 years, in fact, since the Trudeau era. Imagine how much worse the situation becomes when we are governed by premiers such as Mike Harris and Ralph Klein. It's all rather unnerving.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): And your question would be what exactly?
Mr. Yvon Godin: I thought I had five minutes. Do I really have only two or three? I can stop right now.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Please put your question, Mr. Godin.
Mr. Yvon Godin: No really, it's alright. I'll stop now.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Don't get your knickers in a twist, Mr. Godin. I'm really doing the best I can.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, and so am I, Madam Joint Chair. I know that you are pressed for time, so I'll stop.
The Joint Chair: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I'll let my colleague Mr. Godin have my time.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Fine.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Go ahead, you can use my time.
The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Go ahead, Mr. Godin. You can use Mr. Bélanger's time.
Mr. Yvon Godin: No, it's alright.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Really, I insist.
Mr. Yvon Godin: I said it's alright.
The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Are there any other questions?
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Chrétien has a question.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): I hope I can have Mauril's time, and Yvon's as well.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Commissioner, as I listened to you recall the past 30 years and the spiritual father of the Official Languages Act, Mr. Trudeau, my heart started to pound as some fond memories came flooding back to me.
When you stated that the new City of Ottawa should be bilingual and my colleague Mr. Bélanger started to applaud your words, I wanted to join in. However, the applause seemed to peter out and therefore, I refrained from following his lead. I do believe though that Ottawa should be declared officially bilingual, otherwise it would be rather absurd.
Here on Parliament Hill, bilingual services are not always available. I've filed three complaints with your office and these are still outstanding. One involves a driver of one of the Hill shuttle buses who can't speak French. Furthermore, the bills presented to patrons of all of the cafeterias on the Hill are printed only in English. How can you ask restaurants in the nation's capital to give their patrons bilingual bills when the same rules do not apply here on the Hill? Sixty or seventy-five years ago, a statue was erected on the Hill. Although the Official Languages Act was proclaimed 30 years ago, nothing has changed, nothing except the plaque on the statue, most probably.
There is something that I have difficulty understanding. Your predecessor wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons on July 27, 1999 and resigned one or two days later. That a person in such a position could resign a few days only after signing a document as important as the memorandum signed with Gilbert Parent is unacceptable. Gilbert Parent signed this memorandum on September 16, when you had taken over the position. You never had a say in this. Senator Rivest told you to go to bat, and that is what you are doing.
And Gilbert, who is a good guy, is both judge and judged. It seems that five security guards working on the Hill do not speak French, including Mr. Jones whom I have seen back in service. And do you know where? At the Speaker's door. He is the one who will be seeing to the implementation of official languages at the House of Commons.
In any event, I have found you to be very optimistic and to have a bilingual Canadian nationalism that is most encouraging, but, as the senator was saying, when someone is found guilty, he gets wrapped over the knuckles and that's it.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Mr. Chrétien, is this a question or a comment?
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: It is not a question, but a comment on which I would like to hear your view. We were had with this memorandum of understanding.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Well, the agreement is nevertheless...
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Don't tell me it's a good agreement.
• 1650
Ms. Dyane Adam: When Mr. Parent and his team collect data and my investigators examine them, we make sure that the information is complete, that all angles have been covered, that we can make a judgment call, at least on the issue, and then decide and make our recommendations.
This is a whole new Memorandum of Understanding, and I must underline that it does not apply to all complaints related to Parliament Hill. The Commissioner's Office handles the great majority of complaints concerning administrative functions in the House. According to our most recent statistics, we have received two or three complaints concerning administrative functions and one concerning House business and proceedings. Therefore, the problem's gravity must not be exaggerated. I admit that Parliament Hill does not get a perfect note in relation to its administrative activities and it is important that it see to its shortcomings if it is to serve as a model for the country. It undoubtedly gives the pitch. If slips are observed at the federal level, Mr. Harris and company will take much more liberties.
When you complain, we investigate and we allow ourselves to intervene so that changes are made. I will continue to play my role, but I think that the problem is bigger than you are saying. I would like to see you debate the issue within committees such as this one and raise these questions directly in the House, which would be of great help to me as Commissioner.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: One must admit that since this Memorandum of Understanding has been put in place, it takes a lot of time to deal with complaints concerning Parliament Hill.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Complaints fall in two categories, and I would not wish to put the House on public trial here.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: You have the right to do so.
Ms. Dyane Adam: I have examined the number of complaints lodged at my office and I must admit that the timeframes are just about the same. However, I admit that the timeframe was a bit longer when the clerk was asked for a response.
As I was saying earlier, we can only act as fast as our institutions can react. My office was told that changes in personnel at the Clerk's office could explain some of the delays. A meeting has been organized between the Clerk, his personnel and my office's personnel.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Will this be the first since you have named to the position?
Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes. I do not think there have been any.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Chrétien. Ms. Adam, I thank you.
Ms. Adam, please accept our apologies. We will be unable to hear the second part of your presentation. We will try to invite you again very soon.
We must now examine our future business. I'm hoping that we can get this done within the next 20 minutes.
Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I am asking both joint chairs if I can propose that we try to organize meetings to which some members of the committee would be present? If we wait too long, maybe you will not get the feedback that you wish to get from us.
I am saying openly, in front of my colleagues, that if you wish to hold a meeting with some of us or to hold individual meetings, I will gladly be present. Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Bélanger's suggestion seems very interesting since it could be a more efficient way of doing things. We could maybe invite some senators at a later date. We never have enough time and we are often interrupted by votes.
Ms. Dyane Adam: We would also agree to this type of formula. I will let the joint chairs and the clerk decide and see how we could co-ordinate these meetings. We could organize meetings to which small groups of three or four members could be present. I could then discuss some other matters of interest to members of your committee.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I must tell the members of the committee that we have tried to organize a meeting for Thursday afternoon—which seemed like a good time to have it—but we have learned that this time slot would not be convenient for some. It is difficult enough to hold a meeting on Tuesday afternoon but it is really impossible for the rest of the week. We will however try to set up with you, Ms. Adam, a schedule according to the availability of members of Parliament and senators.
• 1655
Ms. Adam, we thank you again.
Ms. Dyane Adam: It is I who thank you.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Robichaud, Mr. Finn and Ms. Tremblay, I thank you very much.
[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]