LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 11, 1999

• 1533

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Good afternoon, colleagues. Before inviting Mr. Victor Goldbloom, the Commissioner of Official Languages, to take the floor, I would like to present the 11th report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure, which met on Tuesday, May 27, 1999.

The sub-committee agreed to suggest that we invite the following witnesses to appear before the committee: Neil Morrison, the former Secretary of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission; Max Yalden, a former Commissioner of Official Languages; the members of the post-Sudbury Working Group, a list of whose members is attached; the Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale; the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne; and the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, ACFO.

Shall the report carry?

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): I was at that meeting, which lasted two hours, and I don't think these recommendations are the same as the ones we agreed on at the time.

The first part of the report is an accurate reflection of our discussions; we did in fact invite Messrs. Neil Morrison and Max Yalden to appear. Then we talked about three groups—the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and the Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale. I think I remember that we agreed that the groups would appear in the following order, first, the la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, second, the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, ACFO, and third, the Table féministe francophone.

• 1535

We talked about inviting the three groups to appear at the same time and giving them only half an hour each. That was the agreement we reached. During the two-hour discussion, I never heard any mention of the Groupe de travail post-Sudbury. I have no objection to hearing from its representatives, but I would like to know that they submitted a written request, like all our other witnesses, or that they were invited at the request of a committee member. They could appear after we have heard from the first three groups.

I would put the Groupe de travail post-Sudbury at the end of the list. I would be prepared to keep them on the list, even though there was no mention of this group during our discussion.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Madam Chairman, I believe we had quite an extensive conversation with respect to waiting until we had the full documents. We were told there were six large briefing books, with the action plans attached, on each of these Canadian institutions. We were told that after we heard these witnesses we would attend to those witnesses, because we would have their work plans in front of us. There were other members of the committee at that meeting.

Mr. Bélanger, can you recall that conversation, since you're the one who asked for those books?

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): For the most part, I agree with Mr. Plamondon, but I would like to remind him that the Groupe de travail post-Sudbury is the group of 14 I mentioned.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Do you want to change the list?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would like Neil Morrison and Max Yalden to come first, and that they be invited to appear on the same day, for one hour each.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): We agreed that we would hear from them on May 25. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne would be the next group.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That's just fine.

Will there be just one group? I thought that on the same day we would give half an hour or three quarters of an hour to the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and that we would also hear from ACFO and the Table féministe.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I don't know whether that is what we agreed to do, but I remember that we did agree to hear from the FCFA first.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I agree.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): These groups would appear after Messrs. Morrison and Yalden, who will be appearing on May 25. We had planned to meet with the representatives of the FCFA last week, but they were not available. We have still not set the date on which that group will be here. In addition, we don't know whether other groups will be appearing at the same time as the Federation.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Messrs. Morrison and Yalden will appear before us on Tuesday, May 25. Will we be sitting the following Thursday?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): In theory, yes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: If our next meeting is only to be held on June 1, then we wouldn't have time to meet those witnesses during separate meetings. This Tuesday, June 1, would be one of the last Tuesdays we'll meet if we were to adjourn towards June 9. We could have the three groups during the same day.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): It's up to the committee to make that decision.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: We will invite the three groups to appear on June 1 and we'll give them half an hour or three quarters of an hour each.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Is the committee agreed? Thank you. We'll send a notice for our next meeting, May 25, where you'll find the names of Messrs. Morrison and Yalden.

I now have the pleasure of asking Mr. Goldbloom to take the chair he's so used to taking and that he knows very well. We'll probably want to put all kinds of questions to him and make some comments on his report and his budget. Actually, this will perhaps be his last meeting with this committee.

• 1540

Without any further ado, Mr. Goldbloom, you have the floor.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom (Commissioner of Official Languages): Madam Joint Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee,

[English]

this is a bit of a special occasion, and I hope you will allow me to take a few minutes to do more than present the annual report for the past year.

I would like to reflect for a few moments on the eight years during which I have had the honour to be the Commissioner of Official Languages.

One asks oneself over a period of time, what has changed, what has been accomplished, what has not yet been achieved? I think it is fair to say there are many things in each of the two columns—the positive one and the negative one. Being positively minded by nature, I would like to begin with some of the positive things.

[Translation]

When I think over those eight years, I remember that when I arrived here, francophone communities in a minority situation managed their own schools in only two provinces. Today, all provinces and both the territories that were in existence till very recently established that same school management. The province of Quebec that had had education duality for a long time, changed that duality to establish a linguistic basis replacing the confessional one that had been in existence for so long.

In conjunction with the managing of their own schools, we examined the behaviour of entitled parents, the right to managing the school system having been established. The possibility for entitled parents to enroll their children in French schools was increased and improved. We saw that not all entitled parents chose French schools.

We wondered what reasons and motivations led these parents to choosing available French schooling or English schooling which has always been available in the anglophone majority provinces. We shared this study with the departments of education, the communities and the organizations in the area of education all across the country. We hope this document will be seen not only as a compendium of the opinions of those people having chosen one or the other school, but also as the basis of a strategy to attract and retain so as to reinforce the communities in question.

I've spoken to this committee several times about the interest I have in community radio and the support community radio is for each community, in one or the other of the official languages. I'm pleased at the fact that French-language community radios have now organized as a network, thus binding the communities more closely together and allowing them to reflect each one's reality a bit better.

• 1545

I'm particularly pleased with the initiative shown by the Regroupement des universités de la francophonie hors Québec. My distinguished successor is chairing that organization and she led that important action. This Regroupement has also organized itself as a network allowing young francophones anywhere in the country to register from a distance with anyone of the institutions making up the network.

We've also seen some progress in the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. I'm saying some progress because I'll have to address this subject when I look at the negative side of the balance sheet. But there has been progress nonetheless. The 27 federal institutions drew up action plans. At his committee's request, my office looked at these action plans and worked with a view to improving them. The second generation of plans undeniably showed improvement although that improvement wasn't yet sufficient in every case. We're now up to the third generation and we're seeing progress.

Finally, something that really pleased me, because I've been complaining about it for quite a while, is that Statistics Canada, in co-operation with my office and other federal institutions, is looking at the needs in the area of demographic research so that we can have a better picture of the reality of the communities and draw up better plans for their future and their reinforcement.

[English]

The need for research has been brought to my attention repeatedly over the years. The French-speaking communities living in minority situations are faced with the reality of assimilation, and the statistics do not appear, in my humble and I hope objective opinion, to provide an accurate portrait of what is happening to the human resources of the communities in question.

So I am particularly pleased that we are looking at the possibility of a more thorough, more nuanced evaluation of what is in fact happening in human terms to the linguistic conduct of members of the communities, and therefore the communities themselves.

The same kind of request has been brought repeatedly to my attention by the English-speaking communities of Quebec. There too, there have been problems of human resources. There have been losses of strength in these communities. It is essential that we know not only what the precise figures are, but the details of the trends that are influencing the demographic pictures and what can be done to counteract such negative trends as we encounter.

I said I had to provide a negative column in my evaluation of these eight years. Last fall I had the honour of addressing a symposium that brought some 700 people from all parts of Canada to talk about official languages. There was a certain—I don't say this critically—congratulatory tone to the discussions. On the last day, I said “I do not want to rain on your parade, but I have to say some things that are not entirely positive.” I asked “Is service to the public by federal institutions, in both official languages where numbers warrant, as good as it should be?” My answer had to be “No, it is not as good as it should be.” Since that time, the follow-ups we have been doing, province by province, have indicated that the situation is approximately the same as it was when we did our first studies, going on five years ago.

• 1550

That is not acceptable because it is an issue of truth in advertising. We tell the Canadian public certain offices are designated bilingual. They will therefore be able to obtain service there in either language. If that is said to the public, it must be true 100% of the time. It is not, and until it is, we cannot be satisfied.

I asked “Are the communities stronger? Are they better supported than they were eight years ago?” Again, my answer has to be “Not really.” We are still not recognizing the particularity of the contribution of official language minority communities to the history of this country, to its present-day reality, and to what makes Canada, Canada.

I have dwelt on many occasions on health care and the need for health care and social services to be available on a fully understandable basis of communication between professionals, on the one hand, and recipients on the other. I am highly gratified by the decision of the government to invest in the training of French-speaking health care professionals by supporting the University of Ottawa in that purpose. I continue to be concerned that the English-speaking community of Quebec has obtained, in only a minority of regions of the province, the approval of the access plans that were a commitment of the legislature of Quebec quite a number of years ago under Bill 142.

Finally, there are two things. You will recall that a year ago, when I tabled my annual report for the previous calendar year, I included within it a survey of transformations effected within the federal structure, and very particularly devolutions of responsibility from the federal to the provincial level and, in some instances, further devolution to the municipal level. I pointed out that whereas each devolution has its logic, its justification, and its value in the rationalization of federal-provincial relations and federal-provincial balances of public administration, one major element has been lacking and is still lacking. That is the assurance of an appropriate recourse and redress mechanism if the services devolved to another level of public administration are not obtained. Recourse to the Commissioner of Official Languages is no longer available to the citizen when the responsibility becomes provincial or municipal.

I had hoped that this would have been addressed by the Fontaine task force, which did an excellent job, but on this one point particularly it did not arrive at an adequate and constructive solution.

• 1555

As I have indicated to the committee in the past, I have taken the initiative of consulting my provincial colleagues, the provincial ombudsmen. Their response has been a positive one. They have accepted to examine the legislative and juridical framework within which it would be possible for them to take up this responsibility. We are not yet at a point at which I can tell the Canadian public that a recourse mechanism is clearly available to them.

As well, you will recall that ombudsmen exist in only eight of the ten provinces. I have to recognize also—and I do not say it negatively, but as an observation of fact—that the ombudsmen's offices in many provinces do not have experience in dealing with linguistic issues and do not have experience in functioning in both official languages.

Finally, I had hoped that my successive reports to Parliament, to the Canadian public, would have caused an increased sensitization of those responsible elected and administrative officials to the need to think about official languages, and those Canadians who speak the one and the other of our two official languages, in each undertaking they put forward in new programs, in the allocation of resources, and just in the general conceptualization and implementation of public policy. I wish I could say as a conclusion, to not only these remarks but to these eight years, that I am fully satisfied that people give this the attention it deserves.

I thank the members of this committee for their cordiality over the years and I am obviously at their disposal for any dialogue they wish to undertake.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you very much, Mr. Goldbloom. I do appreciate the way you have presented both the positive and negative aspects to us. I'd like to tell you that before the end of this meeting I will be giving you a magic wand and ask you to make a wish for us, parliamentarians, so that we will be able to benefit from this increased awareness you have just talked about to us and know how to propagate it.

Madam Joint Chair, if you wish to put your questions later, I'll give Inky the floor.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, I can wait.

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

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank you, Dr. Goldbloom, for coming before us today, and also thank you for all your years of service to this country.

I have several questions. First, there's no doubt demographics can become a big problem down the road. My question is in relation to the aboriginal and the Inuit societies. As you know, we have a new territory. I want to know how you see the relationship between the aboriginal languages and the official languages.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Strictly speaking, aboriginal languages do not fall within my purview. But I have been very much interested in the vitality and survival of aboriginal languages in Canada. I have indeed, from time to time, devoted a small paragraph in my annual report to that subject. I happen, in a previous period of my life, to have been a founding member of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, so I have had more than just an academic interest.

• 1600

We count 53 aboriginal languages in Canada, and their strength varies a great deal. I'm not an expert in the subject, but the information I have been able to gather gives me the concern that the very large majority of those languages do not have a solid base for survival as a vital linguistic force into the 21st century. Three aboriginal languages—Cree, Ojibway, and Inuktitut—are apparently solidly based, and indeed the Inuit population some decades ago developed with the help of interested linguists a written language, which is an important factor in survival.

It is important to me that what we do is not, how shall I say, a museum-like conservation of languages. We can record oral histories and file the tapes in libraries, but if we are not able to strengthen the ability of the communities in question to use their language as a communications tool, and particularly as an intergenerational communications tool, we are not really going to do the kind of service to our aboriginal communities that we should.

Mr. Inky Mark: I'd like to ask you a question pertaining to your role as language ombudsman. As you know, one of the common criticisms of the Official Languages Act is that sometimes it can be used to discriminate on the language side, whether it be a promotion or a demotion. Has the commission monitored these types of concerns, and have you kept a database on these types of concerns?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: We have, particularly because from time to time we receive complaints on this very subject. The act, as you know, says explicitly that English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians must have equal opportunities for employment and advancement in the federal public service. It also says that if a position is to be designated bilingual, there has to be a demonstrable objective basis for doing that. Sometimes the basis used by a given department for designating a job bilingual will be challenged. We take that up and we examine the justification. As in almost any situation, we will sometimes come to the conclusion that the department was correct and sometimes that it was not correct. We call them as we see them as objectively as possible. I have wanted as ombudsman to stand firmly and vigorously against any possibility of discrimination.

Mr. Inky Mark: If I may, one short question?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Two minutes, Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: As you know, the Reform Party's position is based on territorial bilingualism and also bilingualism in federal institutions. You raise a question, how good should it be at the federal level? Could you answer that question? How good should it be?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: It should be 100% in designated offices. Those designated offices are identified on the basis of census figures. Allow me to say that a distinction is often made between what is called territorial bilingualism and what our system is. The fact is that we have territorial bilingualism. It is not based on provinces as units. It is based on census territories as units. In each such territory, English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians are counted on the basis of their responses to the census, and according to the numbers and percentages it is decided that all federal offices, or some federal offices, or just a few key federal offices will be designated bilingual. But once an office is designated bilingual, it says to the public, here is where you can get service in either language because in this area, in this census district, there are sufficient people of both languages to justify that. If that is said, it has to be true. And that is the complaint I have had.

• 1605

The designation of offices has not always been done in adequate consultation with the minority communities concerned. I don't mean that the numbers have been wrong, because it's based on standards that are set in Treasury Board regulations, but the localization of an office may be more appropriate for the community in one place than in another place. If one has chosen the wrong place, one has done a disservice to the community. So we put a lot of emphasis on consulting the community to make sure we provide appropriately located services.

One other thing—and if I remember correctly, I have mentioned this before the committee in the past—is telephone directories have blue pages, especially in the larger centres. The blue pages are listed in English and in French in the larger cities. One would therefore assume that if a federal office is listed in English in the Quebec City telephone book or in French in the Edmonton telephone book, it means this office will provide service in English and that office will provide service in French. Unfortunately, that is not so. It's just a listing, and the offices designated bilingual are not identified. We have put a lot of pressure on Treasury Board and on other departments to ensure that when people look in the blue pages they can tell immediately where they can actually receive service. Otherwise, we're not being fair and we're not informing the public adequately.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Mr. Mark.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Commissioner. I'm also quite happy to welcome you to this committee. I've been in the House of Commons for some 15 years and I've almost always been a member of the Official Languages Committee; so I've seen a few commissioners go by. Even though I always find the commissioners are quite accommodating to the government, I must say that, of all those I've known, you were the most disturbing. This is one way for me to send you some flowers. I'd say that you were particularly disturbing for them in your two last reports and in this one.

A lot of things have been said since you published your reports, and I'd like to take the opportunity of your last appearance before this committee to consult the wise man you are concerning areas that don't fall directly under the control of the Official Languages Act but which, in my opinion, should. How could we go about it? I don't know. It's neither the fault of the ministers nor of any political party; it's due to a strange situation.

I'm submitting this to you based on a letter I got from a doctor, Dr. Lefebvre, a radiation oncologist at the Maisonneuve- Rosemont hospital. This doctor is doing clinical trials and is doing business with the National Cancer Institute of Canada. The institute is headquartered at Queen's University, in Ontario. To do these clinical trials, he must inform his patient and give this information in the patient's own language. Now, the documents provided by the National Institute are in English only. I know that this institute, even though it is subsidized by the federal government, gets most of its funds from companies or campaigns and not directly from any organization under your jurisdiction.

• 1610

This has a serious consequence. You've talked a lot about education, social services and health services in both languages and you have said that it was the philosophy that underlies the implementation of the Official Languages Act. The sick who might hope to be cured thanks to the clinical trials of new drugs don't have access to those trials because the doctors have neither the resources nor the time to translate the document for those patients with a view to fully explaining the possible consequences of the drug undergoing the trial.

Mr. Lefebvre has written to the National Cancer Institute of Canada to ask if it would be possible for them to provide him the documents in French so that he might give them to the patients so they could fully understand the stakes before taking the drugs. This is the answer he got:

[English]

There will be a significant resource implication for us to do more.

[Translation]

So he's being told that it can't be done and that it is done only in English.

I see no guilty party. I wonder if there's a way of improving a situation like that one and that's why I'm putting the question to you. In speaking to several doctors, I noticed that the same goes for the Red Cross and all national organizations engaged in health and research.

As a result, Quebec loses some very substantial economic benefits, and French-speaking physicians and patients are at a huge disadvantage because they don't have the same access to resources as anglophones. This needs to be examined, doesn't it? I would ask you to do so, if possible, or to send us your observations in writing.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Mr. Plamondon, I, like yourself, deplore the fact that documentation is not available in both official languages.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me, Dr. Goldbloom.

Would you like clarification?

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib): Yes. My colleague tends to generalize. He spoke in terms of all health institutes. What kind of research do they do? To which institutes is he referring? So far, he has mentioned the National Cancer Institute and the Red Cross. Could he tell me the names of all the organizations on his list? I know of bilingual institutes. I would like this to be clarified before we continue, but I must say that my colleague's question is highly pertinent, like mine, moreover.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: After receiving this letter from Dr. Pierre Lefebvre, I phoned him and he told me how helpless he felt in dealing with the National Cancer Institute. He forwarded to me a copy of the letter that he had sent to the Institute. He told me that his problem was one that was widespread at research institutes in Quebec. Most physicians are bilingual and they have clients who are capable of adjusting if the physician explains the basics by translating, but they would like to have direct service. Although he did not specifically list institutions, Dr. Lefebvre indicated that this was a fairly widespread problem. That's I was getting at when I put the question to Dr. Goldbloom, who says that he too deplores the situation. I'll therefore let you continue.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I find it very regrettable that useful documentation cannot be obtained in both official languages, especially since you have heard me stress, on more than one occasion, that it is the responsibility of the health professional to communicate clearly with the patient and to ensure that there is a fully comprehensible two-way dialogue.

In this case, the information that I have obtained shows that the institute in question does not receive grants as such from the federal government. It is therefore not subject to the Official Languages Act.

Although I cannot provide a really useful answer to the basic question of how we could set up a system that would yield better results, I certainly hope that national organizations—be they in the public, para-public or private sector—can be accountable to all members of the public, which means being accountable in both languages.

• 1615

I should add that, every year, I hear from organizations in various fields. They describe themselves to me as a national organization which has English- and French-speaking members, but that works mainly in English because English is the language spoken by the majority of their staff members. They say that, when they hold national meetings, they would like to be able to translate everything so that all the participants will understand everything and feel themselves to be on an equal footing. Unfortunately, for some time now, the federal government has allocated fewer resources for simultaneous interpretation and the translation of documents. I find this highly regrettable.

The associations representing judges, jurists and health professionals all tell me the same thing: they would like to respect all their members and be able to send them the documents they need to participate fully in discussions in both languages. I firmly hope that we will do more to help these organizations do a better job.

As for the specific case that you raised, I don't have the answer, but there is certainly a willingness among colleagues in various fields to help the person who speaks the second official language to obtain translations so that he or she has a proper understanding of the documentation and can communicate clearly with the client.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I consult you once again as a man of wisdom. Sometimes, unilingual francophones are incarcerated in a province where the vast majority of people are anglophone and they have problems with management. Here is Mr. Alain Ducap's case. He is in prison in Alberta and he wrote to me. The francophones have organized an inmate committee and he is the president. I will read two short paragraphs from his letter:

Here is my problem. Since my arrival here on November 19, 1998, they have forced me to go to school to learn English under the threat of doing more time, because they want us to take our programming in English only.

So I replied, telling him that the institution is federal and that they must be bilingual. He replied saying that that is not the case for him.

Does or should the Official Languages Act contain a requirement to enable prisoners to take the programming they're interested in in the language of their choice, regardless of the area? Mr. Ducap put that question to the warden, Mr. Hedrick, and the warden informed him that he received money for programming but that he was free to use it as he saw fit. Mr. Ducap stated in his letter that there are courses in Aboriginal languages, for example. Offering programs in several languages is fine, but does the Act or should the Act contain a requirement of this nature?

• 1620

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: We receive complaints from francophone inmates in regions that are mostly anglophone and from anglophone inmates in Quebec, who tell us that they are unable to obtain services, training and correspondence with the administration in their language. We treat these complaints as we do the others and we make the necessary recommendations. Generally speaking, the Correctional Service of Canada cooperates well with us.

In Alberta, the problem is that the working language is English. Both languages are available to federal public servants and other people who work in federal institutions in the National Capital Region, in some regions in Ontario, namely in the North and East, in some regions of Quebec and in New Brunswick. Everywhere else, French is used in Quebec and English in the other provinces. That creates a problem when it comes time to provide services to a limited number of people making up an official language minority in an institution like that one.

I am not an expert in corrections, but it seems to me that people have been transferred from one region of the country to enable them to live in their language. That is a suggestion I would make. Practically speaking, it would be difficult to create a whole range of services where the number of people requiring these services is very limited. So I encourage CSC to examine this situation and others to make the necessary adjustments.

We have the same problem in other areas. I have ongoing discussions with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces on the posting of service members and their families to unilingual bases. These members of the official language minority find themselves in a more difficult situation.

So I hope that flexible possibilities will be adopted to meet the needs of the people in question.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I would like to add something. I think Mr. Plamondon's question on the CSC is very relevant. Take for example the Atlantic region, where there is a prison for women in Truro, Nova Scotia. Francophone women from New Brunswick are incarcerated there. In New Brunswick, we have an Official Languages Act. Could you ask the CSC to shed some light on this Act for us? I will go back to Mr. Plamondon's question. Is an English course justified in these services? What are the services on the prison side? I think it would be to the committee's benefit to obtain some clarification of this issue, unless you have something to add.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I will simply add that I have taken note of the committee's concern and I will raise the matter with the head of the CSC, who is a model of open-mindedness. I will discuss the matter with him to apprise him of the problem that both you and Mr. Plamondon raised.

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

Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Mississquoi, Lib.): Dr. Goldbloom, in my riding, Brome-Mississquoi, the Brome-Mississquoi-Perkins Hospital serves a mixed community. You are familiar with the Eastern townships. The Quebec government is currently planning to amputate—and that is a fitting description—some very important services at the hospital.

• 1625

The Canada Health Act contains criteria that the provinces must adhere to to receive the full federal health transfer. The criteria are the following: universality, accessibility, integrality of services, transferability and public administration.

Does your rule include examining whether public institutions in a given region, like the Eastern Townships, offer full services in both official languages? What can you do in a case like that?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Mr. Paradis, health being primarily but not exclusively a provincial jurisdiction, I am not in a position to call for a review of such institutions. I point out that there is a philosophical and mathematical difference between the Federal Official Languages Act and Quebec language laws.

At the federal level, we establish percentages that are generally about 5% and we say that if there is at least that percentage of people representing the official language minority in a region, we provide services to them. In Quebec, it is essentially 51%. If you are not the majority, you are not entitled to services in your language at the municipal level or in the health sector.

That is a major difference. I can understand the importance for me, as for all Quebeckers, of ensuring the protection and vitality of the French language, and of ensuring that the French language is the language of use in Quebec, but when it comes to health and social services, I have a different attitude. There is obviously my personal professional background. I am a health care professional. So I am perhaps more aware of the concerns that I am putting forth.

It seems to me that where health care is involved, we should display not only flexibility, but also generosity and understanding and ensure good communication, be it through signage or the availability of services. That is what we are asking for. For example, I spoke to the Department of National Defence and the families of service members who are posted to parts of the country that are essentially unilingual. We have a responsibility with respect to these families. We succeeded in getting the department to adopt a new policy recognizing these needs.

I would like us to sit down together, being as serene and as non-partisan as possible, so that we can examine the true human needs of these people who are ill or who need social services and welcome them warmly.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Commissioner, may I ask you to examine this situation taking into account the communities in the Eastern townships, as well as this service which, in my humble opinion, should be provided to the people? Would it be possible for you as Commissioner to take an overall look at the situation and then decide whether or not something should be done?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Allow me and my senior colleagues to examine the extent to which I can respond positively to your request.

• 1630

Two or three years ago, I attended an event that you are very familiar with, Townshippers' Day. I spoke passionately on the subject. I have also written to the successive of Quebec ministers of health on this topic. So I am not trying to avoid any possible action and I am going to see if I can be helpful.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. I have another point to raise.

Next September, the Government of Canada will host the Francophone Summit in Moncton. We will be welcoming 52 heads of State from francophone countries and countries sharing French as a common language. I find that expression in French a bit... In many of these countries, French is not the main language. As Commissioner of Official Languages, your mandate includes promoting linguistic duality inside the country. Are you going to take advantage of this extraordinary forum to ensure that the 52 countries of the Francophonie that are participating in this summit can witness the vitality of our two official languages?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: That is a very important personal and professional objective for me. I can tell you that I will be participating as a speaker in an international conference of francophone health care professionals in Moncton and that my successor, Ms. Dyane Adam, will be participating in various events at the summit in August.

I am very strongly attached to all of the Canadian francophonie, and it is very important to me that the existence of this francophonie from sea to sea be recognized.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you, Mr. Goldbloom.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Before giving the floor to Senator Rivest, I am going to give it to Mrs. Finestone, who had wanted to make an additional comment on Mr. Paradis's first question regarding health care. I guarantee you, dear colleague, that you will have the floor next.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Dr. Goldbloom, at the same time you're examining the Brome-Mississquoi situation, I wonder if you would be good enough to inquire also about the jointly funded federal-provincial program for health coordinators. That was a joint $1 million fund in which the needs of the various communities were taken into account. That joint program has not been renewed. It falls under Bill 142, I believe, and I would appreciate your examining that situation.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I will be glad to. I have already written to both levels of government to express my deep regret that this program has not been renewed. It is a deprivation for the English-speaking community, particularly in the absence so far—and I hope this will not last—of the approval of access plans in the majority of regions of the province.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I gather that those have been cut significantly and that there's a labour issue. I'm glad you're following it up.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I must say in that regard that the regional councils on health care and social service have been very positive in their analysis of their situation and their recommendations for access plans. The access plans appear, from what I know of them, to be good access plans. I keep hoping they will be approved and implemented.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

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

Senator Rivest.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): Mr. Commissioner, this is the last time we will be hearing from you. First of all, I want to thank you. I believe you are about to undertake a seventh, eighth or ninth career. As for me, I had the privilege of being in your environment during at least two of your numerous careers. I would like to tell the Commissioner that I have always been extremely impressed by his desire to serve the public. I think that has always been the trademark and the thrust of Mr. Goldbloom's commitment wherever he has been, whether it be with the Quebec government, where I got to know him better, or here in Ottawa, as Commissioner of Official Languages. On behalf of all Quebeckers and Canadians, it is our duty to thank Victor Goldbloom for the quality of services to the public he has provided in Quebec and Canada.

• 1635

I would like to ask you one last question. It will obviously be a broad question. In your last report, you took the time—and coming from you, it had a lot of meaning—to say with respect to the Official Languages Act and your mandate that you were not always fully satisfied with successive governments' support for or attention to the issue of Canadian duality. I think that you mentioned the fact that one of the major conditions for the continuity of linguistic duality in Canada was precisely that the government and all political parties must unequivocally and regularly renew their commitment to enabling this country to continue to exist while respecting linguistic and cultural duality. That is its fundamental characteristic, which does not exclude the contribution of the many other Canadians who come here as well as that of the Aboriginal peoples. However, duality remains a fundamental characteristic, and the government must continue to affirm it.

Were you saying that the political powers had distanced themselves to a certain extent from this extremely important aspect in Canada?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Senator Rivest, I know that they're always saying the right thing. Speeches are made, documents are published, and the right things are always being said, but when it comes to implementing programs and policies, I don't see enough understanding, no more so than the Pavlovian reflex that leads governments to act automatically in recognizing the needs of the human beings who make up the official language minorities.

During the press conference on my last annual report, I was asked for my opinion on the performance of the powers that be as such, and also the performance of parliamentarians. I hope you will pardon me, but I couldn't give parliamentarians a very high mark. There are exceptions, of course, and most of the exceptions are sitting or have sat around this table.

Generally speaking, it is a subject which parliamentarians prefer to avoid, and I am sorry this is so, because they have responsibilities to their constituents or to the public in the case of senators. I would like to see parliamentarians talk about this more and educate the public about the history of our country and its realities today. I hope you will forgive my frankness.

[Editor's Note: Applause]

• 1640

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Dr. Goldbloom. That is why I gave you the magic wand, so that parliamentarians could be turned into educators.

Like two good Conservatives, we have managed to conserve some time. Senator Beaudoin has two minutes.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We can give him four minutes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, we can give him four.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I agree entirely with what my colleague has said to thank you for the role you have played. You have played a very important role. I have seen you at work here, and also in other circumstances, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you.

Most of the questions that I have been asking deal with Part VII of the Act. Indeed, you yourself gave a negative report on Part VII, and I agree with you totally. I have always said that it was unfortunate that this part of the Act has not been implemented, and I wonder why that is so. Is it because it is poorly drafted—although it is just as good as many other legislative measures, or is it because one would have to refer questions to the courts more often to obtain rulings and give life to this Part VII? As I have always said, it is one thing to have certain obligations set out in legislation, but given human nature, people do not make a great deal of effort to apply the mandatory provisions in legislation if the courts do not intervene. Part VII, in my opinion, has such a mandatory aspect. Should such questions have been referred to the courts more often? Laws have to be interpreted, and my reaction as a jurist would be that we have to oblige the courts to give rulings if we are to force people to act.

Do you think there is some weakness or something lacking in the wording of Part VII, should these matters have been referred to the courts?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Senator Beaudoin, you will remember that when the new Official Languages Act was passed in 1988, the legislator introduced the possibility of legal recourse, but chose to exclude Part VII from the application of this recourse. Thus if someone makes a complaint and is not completely satisfied with the results of the Commissioner's investigation, the complainant cannot pursue that particular point in court.

There are, nevertheless, other ways of getting an interpretation. I think that my Office is about to obtain one, because we have had a difference of opinion with the government, more particularly with the Department of Justice.

I won't go into detail, because the matter is before the courts, and I don't want to give the appearance of pleading the case before the committee, but I would like to quote from a text with which you are very familiar, namely Section 41 of the Act:

41. The Government of Canada is committed to

a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development...

The Department of Justice has stated that this is a general commitment that does not compel federal institutions to take action. However,, I would observe that the government has requested 27 federal institutions to produce an action plan and that this committee has mandated the Commissioner to do an assessment of these plans.

• 1645

I would like to provide you with another quote that comes from a case between the Professional Institute of the Public Service and Her Majesty the Queen, respondent, and the Commissioner for Official Languages, intervenor. In 1993, Justice Joyal stated, and I quote:

[...] the other duty is reflected in the preamble to the Act and in section 41 of the Act. My interpretation of section 41 gives credence to the proposition that policy requires the respondent not only to react or respond to pressures for more or better bilingual services, but to initiate programs to offer these services where there is a perceived need for them, a need which might not be fully reflected in a statistical analysis of the number of inquiries, the number of files, or the current incidence of French and English cases in any particular public office.

This interpretation corresponds to my philosophy, and I would hope that the government of Canada not adopt a minimalist interpretation of the scope of Part VII of the Act.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: As far as I'm concerned, the word “commit” means that you commit to do something. I would hope that a court of law would come out and say that cannot maintain the status quo, that we have to do a bit more.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: All the same, it is incredible that the Canadian government claims that this a general commitment, this government that is supposed to be committed to defending our linguistic duality.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): A comment. You talk about minimalist interpretation and the fact that reference is made to “where numbers warrant”. I'm sure that if Senator Simard were here, he would ask what the numbers warrant. It warrants the money. When we talk about “where numbers warrant”, are we complying with the Official Languages Act?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: The Official Languages Act is based on the notion of the number, and the interpretation is in accordance with the Treasury Board regulation. The Act alludes to a significant demand. The Treasury Board has given some thought to this issue, almost seven years ago, and adopted a regulation that provides the statistical or mathematical criteria that determine where services are to be provided.

However, Madam Joint Chair, Part VII of the Act goes much farther than that. This is not simply about providing services to the individual who applies for a passport or who wants more information about his or her income tax statement. This is about providing support to the communities. When it comes to communities, there is no mathematical calculation involved. The community is there, it is acknowledged to have rights, and these rights must be given meaning through federal government action.

Obviously, there are certain circumstances where statistics must be used. For instance, education: you need to have a minimum number of children in order to set up a school, and that is understandable. We may want to build a school in a village for 15 children, but this is not very practical when, as a child educator or as an administrator responsible for education, you want to provide the full range of services, programs and courses. Accordingly, we need to use statistics, but as far as Part VII is concerned, statistics are not what are used to determine responsibilities towards communities.

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

Senator Fraser.

[English]

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Like most people, I'd like to start out by saying thank you. I think you've been a remarkable Commissioner of Official Languages. This is not a surprise to anyone who has followed your career.

• 1650

As I was listening to you today, I was remembering the first time I met you, Dr. Goldbloom. It was about 30 years ago. You probably don't remember this, but I do, because you were a cabinet minister and I had been pitchforked into doing an interview with you on a subject about which I knew nothing, a complicated subject. Maybe it was environmental. I don't know. I just remember that I knew nothing about it. I arrived, and with my first question you sized up the situation perfectly, and you basically dictated my interview for me. You did the most wonderful job in a short time of giving me an entire picture of a complicated situation, of the possibilities for action in the real world, and of a possible line of attack when I came to do my story, all in the most respectful way.

You showed again today, as usual, the ability to master the most complex dossiers and explain them.

Through all of your many careers you have been a public servant of intelligence, dignity, grace, and integrity. I have personal reasons to know that your whole family consists of people who have made tremendous contributions to this country. But you have been a tremendous asset to Canada, Dr. Goldbloom.

As I look forward, I find myself to be very concerned about the kind of thing Senator Rivest was getting at, I think, and the kind of thing you've been getting at in some of your responses; that is, the general relaxation when it comes to the issue of official languages, a sense that we don't really need to do any more. I look at your reports and I see things such as Air Canada coming up again for recalcitrance in providing certain services, and I see that you use the legal tools available to you because they are all you have when it comes to somebody who is really recalcitrant.

I find myself thinking, is there something profound that's missing in our approach? Is it that we have taken too much of a legalistic or punitive approach to the issue of languages? Is it that we have not celebrated enough specific accomplishments? I don't think there are any Governor General's awards, for example, for the promotion of official languages. What are we not doing that we could turn our attention to in the coming years, apart from having parliamentarians act as educators?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: That's important. I can't provide a full and precise diagnosis. I have tried over this period of time, and indeed in earlier times, to prevail on people to be sensitive to the reality of Canada, to its diversity in general and its linguistic duality in particular.

Perhaps we have come to take things for granted. There is a law and there is a commissioner to whom one can complain, and the fact is that complaining to the commissioner turns out to be a very worthwhile thing because we get the problems corrected in the large majority of instances. So perhaps we have the feeling that we don't need to do very much else.

But I am disappointed that we do not celebrate this as a value to the degree I think we should. Over the years I have met with the editorial boards of all the major dailies across the country, and with very few exceptions they have been not only supportive in the way they have exchanged with me but also in the editorials they have written. I have to express sadness at one exception. The Ottawa Citizen a few days ago came in with an editorial that I thought was way off the mark and did not recognize the human reality of Canada in terms of how we define ourselves. But I do hope there will have been at least some contagion of what I have tried to say to people.

• 1655

I must say, I receive much less negative mail than I did in the first couple of years of my mandate. Is it because people have become tired of writing to me and getting an immediate response from me—as long as it's a reasonably polite letter—or is it because I have had some impact?

I was on a program last week, just after I tabled my annual report, with a station in western Canada that does a lot of open-line programs. I was only interviewed; I wasn't on the open line. But I had the sense that the dialogue that I had for about 20 minutes with the person who runs that program was more of a real dialogue than the dialogues I've had in earlier times.

So perhaps we are getting somewhere. I have, as you probably know, worked in a somewhat related field, that of interreligious relations. In that field I have come up against a widespread feeling in public opinion that there isn't a problem anymore. We don't really need to invest in this kind of effort anymore. I think there is a bit of that in our attitude about official languages. I think also, however, there is a lack of contact between people who speak the one language and people who speak the other. We're doing better. We have more people in both linguistic communities able to communicate across the linguistic dividing line than we used to have, but it's still a minority of Canadians. And still, close to two-thirds of the Canadians who are bilingual are French-speaking by mother tongue.

So we are more dependent on communications agents like the commissioner and parliamentarians than we would be if we were more generally bilingual than we actually are. People will sometimes say on the one hand that Canada is a bilingual country and on the other hand that it's not. The fact is we are not a bilingual country. We are a country in which a lot of people—coming close to about one-sixth of our population now—are able to speak both languages. We're a country in which we have two official languages, and we recognize and respect them. But we're not a bilingual country, because we can't be. Not enough people are exposed on a continuing basis to the other language to be able to acquire and maintain their fluency in the other language. That's why we need educators and that's why we need communications agents.

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

Mr. Goldring, it's your turn.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Dr. Goldbloom. You should be congratulated, certainly, for a lifelong career and service to our country.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Thank you.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have some questions. First of all, I think these reports are pretty well known. This is from a Montreal newspaper that's talking about the English school system slowly, systemically, and inevitably being suffocated. There are other reports too, from news releases. These are from Quebec organizations, for example, the Equality Party, Keith Henderson.

• 1700

Also, in your report you're identifying and talking about the English-speaking minority communities all over Quebec that are still waiting after many months for some action. It's identifying problems and difficulties with this.

I'd like to refer to a speech you made in Dublin. In this speech, you indicated that you have the power of recommendation and that you can, when things are not appropriately resolved, go beyond that and present a special report to cabinet, and if that does not succeed, a special report to Parliament. I'm taking it that this is your annual report.

My question is, because of the problematic areas in here...and it does seem to me to make sense, too, to have a condensed version of that. I would certainly sense from your discussions, too, that you're not entirely happy with what has been happening in official languages. I would think that would motivate you to initiate a special report. My question is, have you made a special report to cabinet, and if so, was that satisfactory? Could we expect to have a special report initiated to Parliament?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Special reports by the commissioner to cabinet and to Parliament are exceptional measures. It hasn't really seemed necessary to resort to that, largely, I would say, because of the interest this committee has taken in the various subjects the commissioner deals with. The committee asks the commissioner to come fairly frequently to discuss these various issues.

The raison d'etre of special reports to cabinet and Parliament is to cope with situations in which public opinion has not been sufficiently aware, sufficiently responsive, and where the government has been actively resistant to doing something that is brought out in the initial report. I don't think that's been my problem. It hasn't really been that government has resisted and refused. It's rather been that the government has said, yes, there is a situation here and we'll look at it. It has sometimes acted very helpfully and sometimes not. That's the way governments are. But I have not found it necessary to use those extreme measures.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would that be considered an extreme measure or would it be considered a wrap-up or an attempt to get something moving on outstanding issues that have been moving very slowly or being stalled? Is the purpose of that report only for extreme measures, or is it, as I said before, to condense this, and to initiate and move the process along?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I recognize that one person's extreme is another person's middle-of-the-road kind of situation, so please don't take my word “extreme” as being the key word in what I was trying to say.

Results are what count. This is my fundamental philosophy, and this is how I have tried to act. The interest of the committee has translated itself into a number of resolutions and recommendations that have been transmitted to the government, and as I said, sometimes the result is a positive one and sometimes it isn't.

• 1705

I don't think the impression of foot-dragging by itself would be enough for me to say, well, I have to provide a special report to cabinet or to Parliament. Parliament receives my annual report. It is a report to Parliament, and this committee has received every other report that I have produced, has reacted to it, and has undertaken to communicate its conclusions to the government. So I have felt helped by the committee and not obliged to go beyond the regular reports.

In the second-to-last issue of my own newsletter, there are two pages that list the 22 special reports that I have put out. These are reports that I undertook on my own initiative; they're not simply responses to complaints tabled by citizens. They have received a good deal of attention.

Let me take the example of last year's report on devolutions and other transformations. I asked the government to create a task force to carry that further, and the government did so immediately. The task force reported within a very reasonable period of time for a task force, and the government said they would take some action. Although that action has not yet been precisely taken, I do not have a basis for saying to the government, you're dragging your feet and I have to do something more dramatic.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Regarding your comment earlier about when the responsibility with the languages is devolved to the province and that it becomes a provincial jurisdiction and no longer the purview of the federal government, is this not all part of the devolving of the responsibility to the province? Should that not be worked out in the larger sense, and such things as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be addressed in it? With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are these the types of things that you put in for the rules or qualifications for devolving responsibility to the province?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: There has been for a very long time an ongoing debate about the balance between federal and provincial responsibilities, the simplification of overlapping jurisdictions, and so on. I'm not an expert in that field.

The charter, which was adopted in 1982, had some specific things to say about official languages and about rights of the official language communities in education. That has been tested before the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered two very detailed judgments on the interpretation of section 23 of the charter, and therefore the charter is a Canadian document; it's applicable throughout Canada.

We have some difficulties where a given province, one in particular, does not accept the full application of the charter and acts differently, does not accept a given part of a given section of the charter. That is a problem, but it is not one that is in my purview. I can talk about it and write about it, but I don't have the authority to do anything about it. That has to be worked out at the political level.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Is that not a problem that should be addressed before we devolve more responsibility in those areas to a particular province that is not addressing or accepting part of the charter?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I feel there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before we continue devolving responsibilities. Certainly the devolution changes the nature of Canada, changes the locus of the responsibility.

• 1710

One of the situations we observe in devolutions that is unlike privatizations, where the Parliament of Canada passes a law saying this service is privatized and these are the conditions of its privatization and these are the conditions under which services will be provided to Canadians in both languages where numbers warrant...or if Parliament decides to create a paragovernmental agency for revenue purposes or for the administration of Parks Canada, it will put its conditions into that; it cannot simply pass a law and put conditions into the exercise by a province of a previously federal responsibility. It has to be negotiated and an agreement has to be signed.

Every province will refuse to allow itself to be identified as a third party acting on behalf of the federal government. It is an independent body acting by virtue of its own legislative constitution and its own laws. That makes the negotiations often difficult.

I think we need to learn some lessons from the negotiations that have taken place with all the provinces now, although one province has not yet concluded an agreement with the federal government in the area of labour market training programs. Very particularly—and I dwelt on this in my opening remarks—we need to ask ourselves, when the recourse mechanism at the federal level is different from the recourse mechanism at the provincial level, or when there is not a defined recourse mechanism at the provincial level, how do we protect the rights of citizens? The citizen is the same citizen whether the service is federal or provincial, and the service is the same service whether it is given by the federal or the provincial government.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Plamondon, would you like to ask a question during the second round? You have no further questions? I will then turn the floor over to Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I too would like to thank you for your work, Mr. Commissioner. I'm not going to wish you too much rest because you're not the type of person to sit on your laurels. We will certainly continue to hear about you.

I am particularly interested in the discussion about Part VII responsibilities of the Act, namely, the notion of a general commitment as opposed to a much more active, targeted and specific commitment. I would like to think that this is the direction that the government is heading in by requesting action plans. Furthermore, I would like to believe and I hope that if this committee is to make a contribution towards the progress of official languages in the country, it would be at this level. I hope that we will stop waiting and deal with this issue very soon. There are 26 agencies and departments waiting to be heard. We will be asking for things and listening to points of view. I would even suggest that perhaps the time has come to add some names to this list, which is certainly not exhaustive, and which was, if I am not mistaken, prepared by Cabinet in August 1994.

For instance, it is high time that the Correctional Service, which we discussed today in the committee, be required to submit an action plan and rectify any shortcomings that may be identified.

If I could encourage the committee to forge ahead quickly and to be quite aggressive, this is where I would take action. I'm still waiting for my portfolios. I don't know where we are with them, but I was told that we would be receiving portfolios.

An hon. member: They've arrived.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Good. Well then, let's begin.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I haven't seen them yet.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We discussed this matter; you forgot it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, but we have to move ahead.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Good, let's go.

Mr. Scott, do you have a question?

• 1715

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

When Dr. Goldbloom referred to his relationship with the editorialists in the country and so on, it caused me to feel the need to congratulate him on his courage. When he first became the commissioner, I recall it was not New Brunswick's finest hour in our history of official languages. We were going through a bit of a firestorm in our province around this issue.

I recall that Dr. Goldbloom was a source of tremendous courage and inspiration to many people of goodwill who were trying to deal with a somewhat unsuccessful insurrection in certain communities around official languages. I'm sure many of the letters he used to receive, which he doesn't receive anymore, were probably postmarked from Fredericton. If they're not writing you now, it's because they're writing me.

Nevertheless, there is the idea that somehow on this issue we have plateaued, and there's a certain complacency that goes with this in a sense that we've accomplished something. I think perhaps it is time for us to take the next step, which is much more proactive and with less legalese. We've had this conversation before. If we really want to move the agenda further, it's going to involve an amount of take-up by the population outside of the administration of public service and so on.

Unfortunately, I believe many people of goodwill are fearful on this issue. They aren't politically fearful, not fearful of consequence to themselves, but rather fearful that each time you promote this—and I'm not one who sees this—you are also going to raise the spectre of resistance. Every time you wish to come forward in an aggressive and positive way, you will also stir up the resistance to these kinds of policies.

I think perhaps it explains why many people who are supportive, many people when they have an opportunity or an occasion when it isn't a big issue—in New Brunswick it's cyclical. There's a tendency to say, why would we want to raise the interest level, and so on. I think that's an idea whose time has passed.

If we're ever going to get past this very minimalist, legal interpretation and actually grow this wonderful experience in Canada, it's time we do that.

I welcome the commissioner's challenge to members of Parliament and parliamentarians of both Houses to educate the population and to do it with the same courage the commissioner has shown in his career. I'm one New Brunswicker who is very thankful for his wise and courageous intervention at a time when these issues were very important to us.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Mr. Scott, I agree with you that in the minds of some people there is a concern that if you talk about something you will provoke an antagonistic reaction. I am convinced that antagonistic reaction is less than it was when I started out.

I have had—I will obviously name no names—in the past, not recently, members of Parliament who have said to me, why don't you drop this subject? Why don't you stop being up front in talking about it? I have obviously not heeded that advice. I have been unhappy that people would take that attitude. The reason I feel so strongly about the educational responsibility is that there is an awful lot of misinformation out there.

I have quoted our study of public opinion polls before. We surveyed 17 years of public opinion polls and we found a fairly broad variation in the results. It was clear to me that the way you put the question made all the difference.

• 1720

There are certainly ways of putting a question about Canada's linguistic duality that will provoke a negative reaction. But the key is that when you ask people, what is your understanding of the Official Languages Act, what is your understanding of what we are trying to do in Canada when we say we have two official languages, an Official Languages Act, a commissioner, and so on, the inaccuracy of the response is extraordinary.

We have an obligation to be educators of the Canadian public, not so much to overcome the negative attitudes as to correct the wrong impressions. If substantial numbers of Canadians think the purpose of the Official Languages Act is to oblige everybody in Canada to be bilingual, and over and above that to favour people who speak one language—namely French—over people who speak the other language, for employment and promotion in the federal public service, then we have a serious problem of misunderstanding on our hands. If people think the purpose of the act is to oblige federal offices everywhere in Canada to provide services in both languages, we have a serious problem of misunderstanding. About one-third of federal offices are designated bilingual and two-thirds are not.

Let me take a province at random, because I was talking on the radio with a broadcaster in that province. He asked me “Is it not so that you have to be bilingual to get a job in the federal government?” I pointed out to him that there are 10,500-odd federal public service jobs in Alberta and just over 400 of those 10,500 are designated bilingual. More of those 400-and-some designated bilingual jobs are held by English-speaking Albertans than by French-speaking Albertans. There is a great deal that needs to be told to people so they don't have the wrong impression.

Let me take it a step further. There are people in this country who have a conspiracy theory about official languages. I have to demolish that conspiracy theory, not only because it is there in the minds of some people, but because it is so easily contagious.

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

Madam Finestone, the co-chair.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I have a question.

I almost feel badly that my question is going to come before the summation and close-up. But I really feel an obligation to ask you, with respect to section 7, about the Fontaine report. I believe you felt it had not been ample enough in its evaluation of where the holes were in advancing the desire expressed under section 41. I wonder if the Savoie report responds better to the concerns you had about the adequate system for the implementation of part VII of the act.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: The Savoie report is a little more general in its scope. The Fontaine report focused on the specific problem of devolutions. As I said earlier, I think it was an excellent report. I pointed out three things that I felt were not as clear and did not go as far as I would have hoped. The major one was the recourse and redress mechanism.

I have to say, in great respect and friendship for the members of the Fontaine task force, that I did not think what they suggested, which was essentially that the President of the Treasury Board should take responsibility for dealing with complaints, was a practical solution.

• 1725

Secondly, the report seemed to make a distinction between responsibilities that were essentially federal and responsibilities that were essentially provincial. But the whole thrust of what I was trying to say was it's the same person receiving the same service, and we should not make a distinction.

Thirdly, I had pointed out that under some of the devolution agreements there was the possibility of federal public servants being transferred to provincial public services. In some provinces, notably New Brunswick and Quebec, there is the right to work in either language—in all of New Brunswick and in certain parts of Quebec—and the person transferred would likely be able to continue working in his or her preferred official language. But there are other parts of Canada where that does not exist—the working language is one language. I had therefore hoped that the Fontaine task force would have made an explicit recommendation that if a person were transferred, his or her language of work rights would be transferred with him or her.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You have indicated that this committee has followed up on many of your observations—and I can tell you we have loads of books and reports, and you've really been most thorough in helping us cope with the large issue at hand. But would you not think, following up on what Mr. Goldring said, a special report with respect to extreme measures might not be a good idea from you to the cabinet, which would look at the fact that we need recourse and redress, with respect to the fact that it was this government that did the downsizing? It did the decentralization, carried out the responsibilities and transferred them, not only to the provinces, but through the provinces down as far as the cities and towns.

You could be very helpful in readdressing that question in a very specific way. You know—you've sat in the cabinet long enough—how many responsibilities cabinet ministers have and how difficult it is to address all those issues. A specific point from you with respect to the implications of that transfer might well be looked at far more seriously.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I take your suggestion very positively and seriously and would like to consider that as something to do before my mandate is over.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I may also suggest, when you are writing that, that it's important to recommend that if they maintain—without any additional caveats, which may be too late since the negotiations have been completed—there is a need to train the provincial ombudsmen. I would go so far as to say it might be your next career. You've had multiple careers, but you certainly could render an additional service by training those ombudsmen on the special needs required in this particular field.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: They are very willing and very cooperative, and I will be having ongoing conversations with them. By coincidence, I had another telephone conference with my provincial colleagues today.

The opportunity to make the point is one I would welcome, so I shall very definitely look at that as a possible thing to do.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Dr. Goldbloom, as the Commissioner of Official Languages, you are seen to be thorough and fair. The situation in Quebec is dramatic for the English-speaking community. For the first time I see for sale signs going back up again in the English part of the city. I don't like that. It looked very good and very healthy and forward-moving until these new non-changes—a change in attitude has taken place and the language has changed. They may be winning conditions, but they're not winning conditions for the English-speaking community.

• 1730

So if you would give some consideration.... I'm not asking for an answer; I'm just making a point. I would appreciate it if you would make some observation in your extreme interests that you might want to express.

There is one other issue that came to the fore yesterday in the National Post that relates to the official language dispute over the Copyright Board. I note that in one of the many reports you've been good enough to share with us, in regard to the equitable use of English and French before federal courts and administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial power, you indicate that there are circumstances that don't require actual bilingualism for the particular judges or functionaries, that you could use a statutory requirement that any interpretation from one official language to another given at civil proceedings constitute part of the official record.

You also go on to say that parties to a proceeding can identify, prior to setting the date of the hearing, the official language in which they intend to present arguments, and that there can be an interpretation of those arguments. In other words,

[Translation]

you could have an interpretation.

[English]

So I think it would seem reasonable, according to your report here, to arrange interpretation only for the duration of that witness's testimony.

Now, if the request is that they be able to understand both English and French without translation, the Copyright Board is caught in a bind, because it is short of a third party and it's short of a bilingual person, or a francophone person. How would that fit into the report you issued recently?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: We have wanted to establish three related principles. There has been a tendency to focus on one principle only: the right of the person to use either official language before a tribunal. That is not sufficient. You have to have the corollary right that when you use your language, you will be understood. You have to have the third right that after you have used your language and you have been understood, the proceedings go on, and you have to have the right to understand what is going on around you. So those are the three fundamental principles that underlie the report that was just made public on Saturday. The issue of simultaneous interpretation in the tribunal obviously relates to the implementation of those three principles.

The other thing we touched on—and it's a tricky subject—is whether all the decisions of every tribunal have to be translated. Now obviously, if you're talking about the Supreme Court of Canada, the answer is yes. Everything needs to be translated. If you are talking about an administrative tribunal that deals with technical matters, that receives citizens who come before it in one language and the decision is rendered in that language, and the decision is not of jurisprudential importance and is not going to attract the interest of the media or public opinion, should one oblige every such decision to be automatically translated or translated on request? It seems to us that common sense...and common sense is based, among other things, on directives issued by Treasury Board that say to federal institutions, before you send something for translation, ask yourself, does it need to be translated? Common sense needs to prevail in that regard.

With respect to the Copyright Board, we received communications before a decision had been made about the appointment of the current head of the board. Those communications expressed concern that a non-bilingual person might be chosen. I took the position at that time that I could not take up a complaint by anticipation. As it turned out, a thoroughly bilingual person was named to head that board. But section 16 of the Official Languages Act says quite clearly that a board must be able to understand the language chosen by the person or persons appearing before it, or both languages if both languages are required. That is clear in the law, and I don't think there's any compromise on it.

• 1735

Mrs. Finestone, allow me to come back to the subject you raised earlier, because it's too important for me not to respond to it. The English-speaking community of Quebec has gone through a difficult period. When we look at numbers of children enrolled in schools 25 years ago and today, the difference is dramatic and disquieting. It is true that for a few years recently there was a levelling off and even a slight rise, but that seemed to be a kind of baby-boom phenomenon, and we have to anticipate that there will be further declines.

I have placed a great deal of emphasis on rights with regard to health care and social services. I have also, in communicating with different ministers in the Quebec government, emphasized the need for people who are not French speaking to acquire fluent command of French in order to have a fair, equitable chance on the job market and that they should not have to spend additional funds in order to acquire that language.

These are things that have been preoccupations for me. Last week, to my very pleasant surprise, there was an English language journalist in Montreal who devoted a column to quoting from letters that I have written to ministers of health, education, and other departments in the Government of Quebec.

I have tried to respect, on the one hand, provincial jurisdiction, and on the other hand, part VII of the Official Languages Act, which gives the federal government, and therefore the commissioner, a responsibility toward official language minority communities to maintain courteous, and I hope constructive, communications. I have done that, as I mentioned earlier, with regard to the health care coordinators and so on. I have just done that. It's not a public document as yet, because I want to give the minister the courtesy of receiving it first and reading it before I share it with other people. But I have written about the field of theatre, for example, and the need for equitable support, particularly since some months ago the federal government entered into an agreement with the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française for support to French language cultural institutions in the majority English language provinces.

So it is obviously potentially delicate, not only with respect to Quebec, but with respect to other provinces as well, for an officer of the Parliament of Canada to enter into communications regarding matters in provincial jurisdiction. But I have been as unbashful as I have felt able to be in this regard.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Well, for that we are most grateful.

• 1740

There is one piece of business, ladies and gentlemen, that has to be attended to, if you wouldn't mind waiting one moment. Then I will express our formal thanks. Thank you.

This is an estimates hearing as well. I would like to report the estimates to the House.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It consists of vote 25 in the amount of $10,802,000, less the three-twelfths of this total amount, which is $2,700,498, voted in interim supply.

PRIVY COUNCIL

Commissioner of Official Languages

Vote 25—Operating Expenditures ...... $9,474,000

(Vote 25 agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you.

Dr. Goldbloom, the members of this committee, in having the opportunity to address their questions to you, have, I think, shown you the deep respect and high regard with which you are held by not only the members themselves but also their constituency and the community. In terms of service to our country, your positive and negative indicates a great forward movement under very skilled, competent, and I would say delicate, leadership on your part. The fact that you are a renaissance man, which I think is quite obvious to many of us, and that you have been this tremendous asset to Canada is something we will all note. Certainly, the passage of time will improve even more the record you have started or continued and amplified on the road to recognizing the two official languages of Canada in a constructive and positive way. On behalf of this committee, please accept our heartfelt thanks and know that we wish you

[Translation]

a good trip and we hope that you will arrive back home safely, here and even in Montreal. We have been enriched by your presence. Thank you very much.

[English]

(Editor's Note: Applause]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ladies and gentlemen, you are invited to the Francophonie Room, which is just down the hall, room 263-S, Centre Block, to share a bonjour and an au revoir with our guest. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.