LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 16, 2001

• 1530

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

We are here today to study Part III of the 2001-2002 Estimates, which were distributed to you by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

We are delighted to welcome for the third or fourth time Madam Commissioner of Official Languages. Madam Commissioner, as is the custom, we will give you the floor. If you would present the people who are with you, we will then move on to the questions, in the order set by the committee.

Madam Commissioner, you have the floor.

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you, Mr. Joint Chairman.

I thank you for welcoming for a second time this month. I would like to present my three colleagues sitting with me at the table. They are Mr. Michel Robichaud, Director General, Investigations Branch, Mr. Gérard Finn, Director General, Policy, Communications and Regional Offices Branch and Ms. Laura Snowball, Legal Advisor.

[English]

Before I begin I'd like to take a few minutes to report to you on some of the key issues that were raised the last time I was here. There were questions of budget, yes, but I will come to those at the end. Not that it's not very important; I'd just like to respond to some of the questions raised at our last meeting that I did not have time to address or that I did not have the information for at the time.

[Translation]

I will start with Ottawa, a bilingual city. Since the last meeting I attended, there has been movement, change. I will begin today by first expressing my satisfaction in seeing that a bilingualism policy was passed last week by the new Ottawa City Council. Of course, through this policy, the municipal government has undertaken to offer services in English and French throughout its jurisdiction.

We all recognize however that this policy is merely the first step. The new restructured city of Ottawa consists of 11 former municipalities with a range of linguistic provisions. In order to implement this policy, the new city will therefore need the solid support of several partners, including the federal government.

[English]

I believe the federal government has an obligation to be attentive to the city's needs in the implementation of this program. You can always go back to the Official Languages Act, which states the responsibility of the federal government with respect to the municipalities. So some ways we could do it, in addition to offering special assistance to the new City of Ottawa, could include language training, translation, simultaneous interpretation services, and expert advice.

I think the federal government could exercise the leadership role as set out in section 43 of the Official Languages Act in order also to strongly encourage the Ontario government to amend the 1999 City of Ottawa Act to require that the administration of the city and the provision of municipal services to the public be in English and French, in accordance with the bilingualism policy.

So there are two ways at least that the federal government could play its leadership role and push a bit towards full implementation of the bilingual policy at the municipal level in the capital.

[Translation]

The amalgamation of municipalities in Quebec is another issue. Senator Fraser had asked a question. Unfortunately, she is not here today. At the municipal level, the Quebec government passed Bill 170 in December 2000, amalgamating the 28 municipalities of Montreal Island into a new large city. It also passed Bill 171 amending the Charter of the French Language, and thereby creating a new criterion for the bilingual designation of municipalities.

• 1535

As you know, several municipalities have already decided to legally contest the amalgamation process set out in these new laws. For my part, I officially requested intervener status on May 15 for this case to be heard before the Quebec Superior Court. My intervention is somewhat limited but still important. My sole purpose is to ensure the recognition of the legal scope of the constitutional principle of the advancement toward equality of status of English and French and the principle of protection and development of Anglophone and Francophone linguistic minorities, as provided in section 16(3) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I consider it my duty to intervene as amicus curiae to prevent legal assent through Bill 171 of a principle and a situation in which an official-language minority community must not only be in a numerical majority, but indeed as measured by the least generous criterion, namely, by mother tongue in the case of Quebec, to have access to the benefits intended for this minority under the Charter of the French Language.

[English]

So in its statement of defence—and I think that's another issue—the Quebec government argued that subsection 16(3) does not grant any rights and is instead a simple statement, and that governments are free to take measures to protect the language rights of minority communities if they wish.

Well, my office maintains—and we do in many court cases across Canada, based on jurisprudence also—that subsection 16(3) creates obligations for governments and does not allow for any decline in existing rights and protections. As commissioner, I have a national mandate, and it is therefore essential that I intervene in this case, since a restrictive interpretation of subsection 16(3) of the charter by this court could lead to an erosion of minority language rights across the country.

Another issue that was raised at our last meeting was the question of the scope of part VII of the act. I'm now shifting our attention from municipal affairs to a broader issue, addressing the most technical aspect of part VII of the Official Languages Act.

During my last appearance here, several committee members expressed an interest in learning more about my position on the debate on the scope of part VII. It is noteworthy in this regard that Justice Blais made a final ruling not on the scope of part VII but instead on the federal government's obligations with regard to a transfer of its responsibilities to the provinces.

Before I give you a summary of the judgment and our arguments, I would like to share with you my understanding of the issues in this debate. I believe we first must agree on the diagnosis before we can discuss potential solutions. Let me briefly reiterate the principal elements in the current context.

[Translation]

Since the Official Languages Act was passed in 1988, no Speech from the Throne has placed so much emphasis on official languages as is evident in the commitment made in the January 30 Speech. To me, and to you as well, no doubt, this is an encouraging sign of the will to mobilize the federal machinery of government. The minister newly designated to coordinate official language issues must be seen as further evidence of this commitment.

It seems however, in spite of the good intentions included in the Throne Speech, and judging from the interpretations of the Department of Justice, that the machinery of government has chosen since 1988 to take a minimalist approach to the scope of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The Department of Justice has thus far maintained that Part VII of the Official Languages Act should be regarded as declaratory rather than enforceable. This opinion was indeed defended by attorneys representing the Minister of Justice in the proceedings on the Contraventions Act.

• 1540

In our opinion, Parliament adopted Part VII in order to give full force to section 16, thereby making these two provisions inseparable from each other and therefore enforceable.

[English]

It would therefore be appropriate for the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages to review the scope of part VII and to invite the key players to testify on the application of this legislative provision, so vital in importance to the future of official language communities and linguistic duality in Canada. Such consultations would make it possible to evaluate, before the autumn, the suitability of a referral to the Supreme Court in this regard, or the need for legislative clarification or any other measure deemed necessary. What is important is to clarify the scope.

[Translation]

Let's get back to the judgment on contraventions. I would now like to give you a brief summary of the decision by Justice Blais with regard to the Contraventions Act. The judgement includes five key points that I would like to emphasize.

First of all, the judgment confirms the principle that the government cannot neglect its linguistic obligations, set out in the OLA or the Charter, by transferring or delegating to other orders of government or to third parties its responsibilities relating to services to the Canadian public. This principle is reiterated in section 25 of the OLA.

Second, it allows the Commissioner to raise, in any recourse pursuant to the OLA, not only violations against the obligations set out in the OLA but also any failure to fulfill constitutional obligations set out in the Charter.

Third, it recognizes that any failure to comply with the provisions of the OLA can be enforceable.

Fourth, the judge recognized the importance of the public right to file a complaint with the Commissioner for any infringement of language rights.

Finally, the Court ordered Justice Canada to take necessary legislative, regulatory or other measures in order to comply with this judgement.

Although the judge did not make a ruling on violations under Part VII, since the OLA does not allow the Commissioner to take recourse regarding a violation of this part, he did note that Sections 2 and 41 of the Act:

“sent a clear message to all Canadians regarding the equality of status of the two official languages of Canada and the firm intention of the government to strive to achieve the ultimate goal of equal status between the two languages”.

[English]

Finally, we argued in this regard that the federal government had not fulfilled all of its obligations provided in part IV, with regard to service, and part VII of the OLA in its application of the Contraventions Act, as amended, and its constitutional obligations pursuant to section 16 of the charter.

For your information, the text of this decision is available on our Internet site, if any of you are interested. Nevertheless, we have brought a summary of the judgment and the arguments we presented in court. I think they have been given to the clerk.

Immigration is another issue that was raised. There's positive news on that front. I would like to touch briefly on the issue of immigration, which is of vital importance to the development of minority communities.

In my last annual report, I identified immigration as a central issue. I believe Canada's approach should be part of a demographic approach that respects the government commitments set out in part VII of the Official Languages Act. An immigration policy must not be based, as at present, entirely on economic considerations. It must help build Canada's social fabric by helping to strengthen the vitality of official language minority communities.

[Translation]

As this matter is of great concern to me, I ordered a special study on the subject last summer. The study will be completed within the coming month, but some of its findings confirm our observations regarding the lack of effort to recruit Francophone immigrants to communities outside Quebec and the integration problems of Francophone immigrants in official language minority communities.

• 1545

I presented my recommendations in this regard last March to the committee studying Bill C-11, emphasizing in particular the fact that the Government of Canada, through its immigration policy, must enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and support and assist their development.

I am delighted that the Honourable Minister Caplan received our recommendations favourably and that the Citizenship and Immigration Committee has agreed to make three amendments to this bill in accordance to reflect this priority.

Another issue that warrants the committee's attention and that will be looked at by the Office of the Commissioner during the next few years is that of government on-line. In the Speech from the Throne of October 1999, the Government of Canada announced that by 2004 it would be the government most highly connected with its citizens electronically, so that Canadians would have access to all government information and services on-line, at the time and place of their choice.

These services must of course be offered in both official languages. This means not only that the information and updates on federal sites must be published simultaneously in both official languages, but also that these sites must include linguistic tools suited to create an equivalent level of use in English and French.

I therefore undertake to study this matter in greater detail and the new issues it raises and hope soon to be able to make very specific recommendations to the government.

This brings us to funding for official languages. It is the last part of my presentation, but certainly not the least important.

[English]

These are some of the current issues, but there are other important key issues that I follow closely, whether they be linked to language of work, language of service, or the human resources renewal in the public service. I would gladly come back at any time the committee feels ready to dwell on these issues that are also important to the full implementation of the act.

The growing number of interventions involving the Office of the Commissioner and the very nature of the major issues on the horizon for official languages bring us finally to the matter of the funding needed to ensure the full implementation of the Official Languages Act and the viability of existing programs.

Since OCOL's budget has been cut by approximately 28% since 1992-93, it is essential that we obtain increased financial support from the government. Since I assumed office as commissioner, we have launched a full strategic planning process in order to thoroughly examine the available resources and our organization's additional requirements. Discussions in this regard have also begun with Treasury Board.

[Translation]

We also know that the human resources devoted to official languages, including those in central agencies, have been greatly reduced in recent years. A recent Treasury Board study showed that the number of Full Time Equivalents in all departments with some responsibility for official languages dropped from 225 in 1995 to 111 in 2000, a 50% drop in 5 years. The irony is that the cost of internal and external official languages programs, which was $654 million in 1990-1991, had dropped to $510 million in 1998-1999, the same nominal level as in 1977-1978, prior to the 1982 Charter, the 1988 OLA revision and recent landmark Supreme Court decisions.

[English]

As I stated earlier today before the Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders, my role as Commissioner of Official Languages is not limited to ensuring that the OLA is merely respected by the federal institutions in question. As an agent of change, I also intend to promote the values underlying linguistic duality and the development of official language minority communities, one of the key priorities of my mandate. But in view of my rather limited resources, I need to rely tremendously on your influence, on your support, and on your work.

• 1550

[Translation]

In closing, I would like to mention that Senator Loyal made a good point when he underlined the importance of cooperation between the joint committee and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I hope you agree with me that it is essential that we work together and mesh our thinking in order to further official languages issues, as set out in Section 88 of the Act. I hope that we will meet often during the coming year and perhaps even rethink the nature of the cooperation between my Office and this joint committee. Thank you.

I am available to answer questions or comments.

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

Please note that Madam Commissioner must leave us around 5 p.m. I believe. That is what had been agreed upon.

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good day, Madam Commissioner. It is always a pleasure to meet you. You have touched upon many subjects.

[English]

I have to choose between all the different topics you've touched on, but I wonder if I can just pick out a few and perhaps dwell on them a little bit.

In your presentation you referred to Bill 171, and said:

I consider it my duty to intervene...to prevent legal assent through Bill 171 of a principle and a situation in which an official-language minority community must not only be in a numerical majority, but indeed as measured by the least generous criterion, namely, by mother tongue in the case of Quebec, in order to have access to the benefits....

What were the other criteria that would be more generous that you might have thought of as alternatives?

Ms. Dyane Adam: In the case of Montreal...in Quebec, the criterion used, prior to the change in Bill 171, was the language of use. What is important for me is the principle of the most generous. So it may be language of use in Quebec, it may be the mother tongue in other parts of the country, but what was before is in fact a kind of rollback. And I think it's important that we ensure that the acquired rights are sustained.

Mr. Scott Reid: So we say language of use, which is sometimes referred to as home language, as in the census. Is that correct?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. That raises two other questions in my own mind, as someone whose ancestors come from Quebec. My grandparents were both born in Europe and came to Montreal, where they lived, in the case of my grandfather before he died, over 80 years. His home language was Yiddish but the only official language he understood was English.

Do you think there's any validity to taking into account in, for example, an immigrant-receiving city like Montreal, where people are in a situation, such as my grandparents were in, where the only official language they have is neither their mother tongue nor their home language...?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm not sure I got the first part of your question, I'm sorry.

Mr. Scott Reid: Aside from the long preamble about my family history, I was just saying that there are people out there, quite a large number in Canada, who have some third language, or non-official language, as their home language. It's also their mother tongue. But when they're dealing with the outside world, outside their own home and their own linguistic community, they have the capacity to speak only one of the two official languages. I'm just wondering whether there is validity to considering those people as part of the measure when one is determining a formula such as the one that would be used in the city of Montreal.

• 1555

Ms. Dyane Adam: Definitely in terms of the services offered to the two official languages, we base our decisions on the numbers taken in the census. It's based on the two official languages, either one or two.

Mr. Scott Reid: Of course, there are numbers in the census, at least in the decennial census, on the number of.... You can work out the number of people who have some third language—

Ms. Dyane Adam: Many languages.

Mr. Scott Reid: That's right. It can easily be done. You can determine what number of people—for example, in the cities of Ottawa or Montreal—speak a third language as well as one, or perhaps in some cases both, of the official languages.

I have another question. Yesterday was census day. I was lucky, because I got only the short form, and therefore I had to answer only one question in relation to language, which was my mother tongue.

Many years ago the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism made the recommendation that the home language be recorded on an individual basis in the census as opposed to merely on the long form so that you would get a more accurate picture, particularly in smaller communities. That's something that was done in 1971 and has since been dropped from the short form for the census. I wonder if you could put any of the authority of your own office behind encouraging the government to make a change in adding the home language to the short form for future censuses.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I know we have intervened to have questions added to this census. We pointed out that, with Canada evolving into a more multi-ethnic, multilingual society, with more exogamous families, it was important to have a better sense of the linguistic dynamics of our society. We have requested that there be a question on language of work as well as the number of other languages that could be spoken—there was a question only in the long questionnaire on the language of home—because it's becoming more and more frequent for families to have more than one.

So we did manage to get the question...and what you're asking from me is that we look at this question of the short questionnaire again, study it, and make proposals along the lines you suggest.

Mr. Scott Reid: That's right.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Okay. We'll retain that.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Reid, you have thirty-some seconds.

Mr. Scott Reid: In that case I will ask one more question, on an entirely different subject.

On page 8 of your report you make reference to a recent Treasury Board study showing that the number of full-time employees in all departments with some responsibility for official languages has dropped by about 50%. Would you tell me the name of that report so I can take a look at that myself?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think it's the annual report of Treasury Board, is it not?

Mr. Gérard Finn (Director General, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): No, they had a special consultant, Sussex Circle, but I don't have the name of it completely. It's a public document, and we can get access to it.

Mr. Scott Reid: I have your business card, so perhaps I can give you a call and follow up on that.

Mr. Gérard Finn: Yes.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We have a habit, Mr. Reid, of distributing to all of the committee whatever documentation comes up. Perhaps you wouldn't mind making sure every member of the committee obtains it. That would be appreciated.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Good day, Ms. Adam. How are you?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Fine thank you.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Your presentation was interesting. You raised quite a number of issues. I will not dwell on them. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Seven minutes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Seven minutes is not a lot.

Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.): I have enough for 10.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to deal with the issue that concerns me, your budget. It takes money to run the Office of the Commissioner. That's why I will talk about it for a few minutes.

• 1600

As I understand it, you intend to become an agent of change, a Parliamentary agent, because you are accountable. At this time, your budget is about $11.3 million. About 50% of this budget is allotted to complaints and investigations. Mr. Robichaud, who is in charge of complaints, uses 30% for administration. That leaves about 20% for research and professional services. I will therefore talk about that 20% for research and professional services.

We hire sociologists, statisticians, very important people, people who can provide advice, lawyers. If you are looking for more money and you have come to the committee to justify your position for more money, how much do you want, Ms. Adam, and how would you justify an increase? I have no problem with your comment that there has been a decrease of 28% over the last few years.. I recognize that. It's like a boat. Godin will know what I mean; he knows about boats. When there is no sail, it takes sheering to change course. You want to change course. You have a strategy. Could you share it with us?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes. I will try to be brief. Since I took office, I started a strategic planning process and examined to entire issue of resource use, the way we work, the functions of the Office of the Commissioner, the impact of cuts on certain information, education, communications, parliamentary liaison and complaints and investigations functions. At this time, most of our resources are used for investigations, as the senator mentioned.

The strategic conversion that I want to make with my team is to keep the investigation function, because that is our mandate, but also to act in a much more proactive manner, somewhat like on the immigration issue that I talked about. It is a perfect example of upstream rather than downstream intervention; instead of waiting for citizens' complaints and saying that the communities are left to fend for themselves and that complaints are filed, we acted so that there would be amendments to the bill and the legislators would assume responsibility for official languages commitments. Of course these are very different approaches that require more research and stronger relationships with parliamentarians.

We also need to modernize the Office of the Commissioner. I come from a university milieu. As you know, the Internet started in the universities. When I arrived, therefore, it didn't take me long to realize that our technology platform and everything technology- based in the Office was archaic and absolutely needed to be replaced. I did not do an in-depth study, but I figured it out after a week. We talk about government on-line. The Office of the Commissioner must be on-line. I then immediately took steps to obtain money from Treasury Board to achieve this renewal of the technology platform, which alone will cost a few million dollars.

Now the efforts are directed at reviving certain functions that had been eliminated from the Office and that are essential to the implementation of its mandate. I am talking about the issue of communications, parliamentary liaison and audit. Complaints are nice but we have a role as linguistic auditors that we virtually do not fulfill any more. The Office has abandoned all its resources. I could provide you with details.

How much money do we need? Is that indeed what I heard? As a good manager, I move by phases. For the first phase, we are looking at $3.5 million. That is what has already been tabled with Treasury Board and the outlook is good. Of this $3.5 million, about $2 million would be in the base. Then, in a second phase, the implementation of strategic planning as I see it, we will probably need an additional $3 million. I am not asking for $10 or $15 million. I could always increase the scope of my activities, but let's say we would be doing our job relatively well with an increase of $4 or $5 million.

• 1605

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You depend on Treasury Board. You are not financially autonomous.

Ms. Dyane Adam: No.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You go to Treasury Board every year to beg for your money. If you are nice, you will get your budget and if you aren't, you wont. You need the help of parliamentarians. I am offering you my help. I think the committee's intentions are good, but those votes have to be adopted today, before May 31 if possible.

You have asked for $11.3 million. Does what you have just talked about constitute an additional amount?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: A or B?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm not sure I understand.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's not important, A, B, C, D.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I still don't speak that language.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Section 52 of the act allows you to hire, but on a temporary basis. With the additional funds, could you hire permanently, on an indeterminate basis?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I also have an obligation to be financially rigorous. If I do not have non-lapsing funding, I will not hire people on an indeterminate basis. There is no doubt that what I am aiming for is an increase in the Office's base, therefore on an indeterminate basis, of about $5 or $6 million so that we can accomplish this strategic conversion that we talked about and that I presented briefly. It is part of the Office's overall vision. That would allow us to diversify our intervention methods to maximize our impact.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have more questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That will be for the second round.

Unless I am mistaken—and correct me if I am wrong—when we talk about a base budget, we are talking about category A. That's how a recommendation should be framed. As a notice of intent, the committee is not able to increase the budget presented but nothing prevents it from expressing its wishes if it so desires.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam, thank you for your presentation. You have effectively raised some interesting points, as you no doubt suspected, I was going to ask you how much money you wanted. Senator Gauthier stole my thunder, which will allow me to move on to the main issue.

That's enough joking around; on page 3 of you document, you say, and I quote:

My sole purpose is to ensure the recognition of the legal scope of the constitutional principle of the advancement toward equality of status of English and French and the principle of protection and development of Anglophone and Francophone linguistic minorities, as provided in section 16(3) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My question is related to acts 170 and 171 in Quebec. If I understand you presentation correctly, you invited yourself to participate or help in the trial.

Ms. Dyane Adam: It is a motion to intervene that was tabled. I asked the court to consider an intervention on the basis of my expertise in language rights in the country so that I can plead the Commissioner's position on the interpretation and application of the constitutional principle stated in 16(3).

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If you would allow me, I would respectfully ask you if you have ever invited yourself elsewhere in Canada to defend the cases of Francophone minorities. If so, where?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, often.

In fact, we have not talked about one of our functions, the judicial one. We intervene in many cases, often in education. It is often section 23 of the Charter that we defend, and also everything related to the constitutional principles, especially parts 16 and 20 of the Charter, which deal with language issues or any court proceeding related to the status or use of French and English in Canada.

• 1610

What are the cases? I will name some. The Beaulac case, which was a very important one in the Supreme Court, is one. I was an intervener, a bit of an amicus curiae. Currently, there is the Montfort Hospital case. We are using the same basic constitutional principle as the basis of our intervention. It is another context. In addition, not long ago we intervened in a provincial court, in New Brunswick, to defend the right of a citizen to obtain services in his language at the municipal level. Also in New Brunswick, there are cases in the field of education. So it is a routine proceeding.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It's routine in your Office.

I will move on to another topic. You mentioned, as my Alliance colleague said...

Are you still a Canadian Alliance member?

Mr. Scott Reid: I still am.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As my Alliance colleague said, you have data about the number of people working, the budgets and all that. Can you tell me if the budget of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, since the adoption of the Official Languages Act, has stagnated or increased? You talk about the public service in general. I find that very interesting. What about your Office since 1988?

Ms. Dyane Adam: The budget has not stagnated; it has decreased, shrunk. In fact, it has been cut by about $3.6 million in 1992-1993, which was, as I mentioned, a decrease of about 28%. You have to understand that it is now at about $11 million, but that is in today's dollars. Of course, for the same number, the same staff, we have to pay much higher salaries than in 1992-1993. So there has in fact been an increase and no recovery. It's about a $3.6 million...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I think that was a slip of the tongue.

Ms. Dyane Adam: ...decrease.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It's that our debates are recorded. There has been a decrease since the application of the Act.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Thank goodness I'm being watched.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We are listening to you.

What are the main elements of your communications strategy to make yourself better known? You spoke about it briefly to Mr. Gauthier. In this financial budget, what are the main elements in updating the communications strategy?

Ms. Dyane Adam: We are developing it, but I must say it's like starting from scratch. When I assumed my duties, aside from the staff there was about $63,000 in the communications budget and we really need to create folders and inform Canadians about their rights. Now I am talking about creating interactive tools on the Internet. In the past, the Office of the Commissioner had access to an entire tool kit that reached children, youth and adults, informed them of their rights and about linguistic duality, and promoted this fundamental value. In short, we have to reinstate all that at a pace the team is able to absorb. I think we have to start by updating our folders and our data, and developing interactive information to reach the young audience and therefore diversify that. Of course, there are also games and everything necessary to make official languages an interesting and modern issue in order to link the country's official languages to economic and cultural advantages, especially in the context of globalization and continentalization. That is our objective.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

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

Senator Losier-Cool.

Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Hello again, Ms. Adam. By the way, I congratulate you on your presentation to the Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders at noon. It was a very good meeting and exchange that I appreciated very much, and I think my colleague Senator Gauthier agrees with me.

• 1615

Speaking of my colleague Senator Gauthier, he also stole my question about budgets and the one on the strategic conversion you want to undertake. I will not elaborate on this issue, but I am happy about it because it is part of your mandate. Of course you can receive complaints. Leave that to Mr. Robichaud; he does that well. He can get them all. But you also have a mandate to help communities develop in terms of Part VII. I hope the budget will allow you to do studies, research, etc. there again you will have not my money but my support for your requests.

I would like to return to the last page, to the conclusion that you presented today, to what Senator Joyal said. I will allow myself to throw out some ideas that might spark discussion with my colleagues here and with you.

Senator Joyal talks about the importance of cooperation between the joint committee and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Briefly, I will mention two simple ways of creating that communication. First, there is your own presence, or that of Mr. Finn, the Director General of Policy and Communications, at each meeting of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. It is a well identified presence. We could make him a consultant or—and I think it is Senator Gauthier who already said that—the official languages memory, the memory of all that has gone before, of all the reports, etc. It is done in other committees and I think it would be one of the ways.

Second, I believe that in your annual report you should put in a paragraph on the evaluation of the Official Languages Committee.

That is not a question. Those are simply suggestions. Since I am talking about the committee, perhaps you and the committee members would like to react to that. Anything is possible.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Adam, would you like to react?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Is that a question or a comment?

Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: You can go ahead.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Ms. Losier-Cool, you alluded to my latest appearance, a few hours ago, before one of the Senate committees, where we had a long discussion about the role of Parliament's money as it relates to the joint, Senate and House committees, as well as on the different ways of maximizing the work of the Office of the Commissioner and of the Commissioner herself by feeding the work of this committee directly and regularly, as Madam Senator mentioned, and even by intervening immediately, on the spot, on presentations made by other witnesses.

I have a rather short history with parliamentary committees, but it seems that the joint committee, about 10 years ago, had a very different relationship with the Office of the Commissioner. However, the findings after our very beneficial exchanges are that the Commissioner and her team should support you much more in your work, be much more in attendance and feed your work more.

If the joint committee wishes, since I want to be proactive, I will not wait to be sought out; I will offer. If some among you would like to comment on this role or on this cooperation, on the nature of the relationship that you would like to have with my office or with me, I will be pleased to hear about your expectations and the ways in which we can serve you better. I am an agent of Parliament. I am at your service. That is the essence of my remarks and of our exchanges today.

• 1620

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

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Ms. Adam for her presence here. I have a few comments or questions.

First, on the bilingual character of the City of Ottawa, I did not personally take a stand because I do not yet know how far bilingualism will go in Ottawa. We will see in the coming weeks, months and years.

I can tell you that I support your position that the federal government should intervene since we have always argued that since Ottawa is the capital of the country, the federal government should take a positive position and help the capital become what it should be to set an example for the country instead of leaving that to the province.

We have always said that since 'Ottawa is the capital of Canada, the city should be bilingual even though it is part of Ontario. That is the position adopted by many parliamentarians and that I myself have adopted. I agree that the federal government must ensure that Ottawa and even Ontario don't pay the whole cost since it is a national city. That is how I see things. That is the comment I wanted to make. I wanted to tell you that I support you in this matter.

You also spoke about the amalgamation of Quebec municipalities. You said that your role was to represent minorities at the time of amalgamations, etc. Do you want to intervene only in the case of amalgamations, or do you also want to intervene in an area like ours, in New Brunswick? The province is nominally bilingual. In Moncton we have a French university and a nice airport. Moncton is practically a centre for the province. We had the Francophone Summit. Do we need an amalgamation between Moncton and Dieppe for it to become bilingual? I am asking myself the question. How do you intervene in the case of Moncton? I know that the Moncton region has always been close to our hearts, especially with its services. That is one of my questions.

We had the amalgamation of Chatham and Newcastle, and then a hospital was created in the Miramichi region. There is a bilingualism problem. Do you have enough money to exert the necessary pressures?

Senator Losier-Cool says that it's very nice and that we should leave the complaints to Mr. Robichaud. On the contrary, I think that the Office of the Commissioner has a lot of work to do on complaints because you could be facing more and more of them.

Air Canada bought Canadian and we are going through that. I don't need to give you the details because we have heard about it almost daily. But we should look at it and have the necessary resources.

It saddens me to see that there has been a 50% cut in departments. Are we moving away from the responsibility of seeing that our country respect the Official Languages Act? I think Mr. Robichaud's workload will be much heavier. I will be watching. With a name like Robichaud, he must be from someplace near our homes. We have to be careful not to lose him. We must not put all the pressure on him because you need a team. Is the government dismantling the team?

I have asked questions and made comments. I want this to be truly productive because I believe in it. That goes both ways. I want to ensure that I am not leaning more towards the French side than the English. In my region, I am not fighting with anyone. My office works in both languages. You won't have to send inspectors to audit my office, but if you want to, do it. I can tell you that I sincerely believe that in my country services should be offered in both languages.

• 1625

I went to the legal committee in Moncton to make that comment. Other members of our committee also went. We are not asking everyone to become bilingual. The day we all become bilingual, we will need only one language. We are asking Canada to provide services in both languages so that we can serve both our peoples.

Ms. Dyane Adam: You always challenge me because you ask a lot of questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would like to point out to you that he took 4 minutes and 40 seconds to ask them. I will therefore ask you to be fairly brief because others want to speak.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I have five seconds to answer you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will leave you a little...

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, five minutes?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It's the first round.

Mr. Yvon Godin: He stole 30 seconds. There are therefore three and a half minutes left.

Ms. Dyane Adam: You are asking me if the Office of the Commissioner is intervening in matters other than amalgamations. Yes, of course. As I mentioned earlier, in the Charlebois case, in Moncton, a citizen deemed that his rights had been adversely affected. Of course the Commissioner cannot take recourse against the city; it is an intervener in a remedy requested by another party. That is different. We do not necessarily initiate recourse actions. We intervene in cases brought by other parties, as in the case of the Town of Westmount and other towns, or like in the Montfort case. That was presented by SOS Montfort. That is the difference.

We intervene in any case that we believe could cause a reduction in linguistic rights of Canadians, or in any issue that affects the status, use and recognition of French and English in the country. We intervene at the first, second or third level. It all depends on the cases and the interveners. If there are other interveners pleading the same kinds of things, we do not repeat that. It would be useless.

As for the cut in official languages, the 50% decrease in resources is perhaps an important indicator of the findings by my office and myself when my latest annual report was released. If there has been a cut in the level of services offered in both official languages, if there has been an erosion of linguistic rights, if the official languages communities have trouble living and surviving, it is perhaps because the federal government has not yet made it a priority and placed it in the centre of its decisions. In a nutshell, I think you have a very important role to play in getting this back on the agenda. As I said, there are signs of this, like the Throne Speech and Mr. Dion's appointment, but that is not enough. There must be results.

It's very nice to have all those lovely people, but as Commissioner, I want to see if there have been changes. In the space of one year, have there really been any changes? Are language rights respected more? Are there fewer complaints? Does Michel have less work?

Let's et back to the mandate, to the Commissioner's role in dealing with complaints. I take it as given that Ms. Losier-Cool's intervention was not intended to diminish the importance of complaints. It is still a key issue in the Commissioner's role. We are an ombudsman, we protect citizens' rights, but that is not enough to advance the implementation of the Act. There must be a reactive component, but also a proactive one in the Commissioner's actions. There is a need to diversify rather than eliminate and add. For that, more resources are needed.

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

Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon and welcome, Ms. Adam. I also would like to thank you for your presentation.

I have two questions and a comment. First, in your speech you said, and that is on page 4 of your text:

[English]

...no Speech from the Throne has placed so much emphasis on official languages as is evident in the commitment made of the January 30 Speech....The minister newly designated to coordinate official language issues must be seen as further evidence of this commitment.

Now, if you actually look at the main estimates, on page 7 you list the partners that are here, including Canadian Heritage and the Department of Justice.

• 1630

I know the announcement was made after the main estimates were tabled, but has there been any discussion, or have you any idea, as to what will be the new role of the minister? As well, do you know whether, or are you recommending that, any of the responsibilities that are here under the current partners remain the same or be merged? Is there some kind of reorganization going on that you can tell us about? That's question one.

The second question has to do with Government On-Line. I know in previous reports you had looked at the problems experienced or the omissions at the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. I believe the department has tried to undertake some corrections in that regard in that national sports organizations, unless they do everything bilingually, will not receive any federal funding at all.

I wonder if you would tell us what other departments you've looked at. I'd be interested in knowing if the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport has actually acted on your recommendation. Has there been any improvement there? Because that was a question asked in the House by the Bloc recently.

I guess the third thing is more of a comment. You spoke about how you felt that your department had get out brochures and things like that, especially speaking to children on their rights. One of the things the Department of Canadian Heritage has done is conduct a study on where children between the ages of 9 and 15 and 15 to 24 actually spend most of their time, and where they are learning. Surprisingly enough, it's not so much in front of the TV any more as it is in front of the Internet. I'm just wondering if you have some plans specifically geared for children on the Internet. If not, I would ask you certainly to look at that.

Thank you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: The role of the new minister, the Honourable Monsieur Dion, will definitely be part of our list in our next report. I guess your question would be better addressed to the minister. I can always relate to you my discussion with him, and how he sees his role, but from what I understand, all the ministers who are responsible for official languages, whether it be Heritage Canada or Treasury Board, still retain their responsibility and the new minister has the function of coordination.

You will recall that in the last annual report I launched I criticized severely the political leadership and administrative leadership, saying that the leadership was fragmented, that there was no coherence, and that there was a very strong need to focus, to develop a concerted plan so that all the partners would work in the same direction.

I believe the PM has heard that message. I was told that it made an impact on him. His response was the nomination of Monsieur Dion and a committee of ministers, what they call a comité de référence. Justice Canada will be on that committee, chaired Monsieur Dion, and they will look at the issue of official language horizontally, on a continuous basis.

What I observe now is that they have set up the mechanism and the next step will be determining whether that mechanism is efficient and gives the results we all want—that is, full implementation of the OLA. But I'm sure Monsieur Dion could give you a lot more on his role.

As to Government On-Line, I'm not sure; this is an issue we need to look at. What we are talking about is alternate delivery mechanisms, and we need to really study this further to give appropriate recommendations.

What I can tell you right now is that at the moment we are offering services on the Internet. Each institution has a website. Some institutions are using automatic translation, and with disastrous results. I will not name any of them. It's in our annual report, and it probably will be again. If this is Government On-Line, we will be in serious trouble.

• 1635

If we want to be proactive, we had better look at what needs to be done now to prevent what we observe happening in some cases right now. My staff and I will be studying this before we come back.

With respect to the sport system and our study, we are currently, I think, starting the follow-up to all the recommendations we made. We should be publishing...?

Mr. Michel Robichaud (Director General, Investigations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): In the fall.

Ms. Dyane Adam: So I should be in a better position then to tell you how the government has acted on these 10 or 12 specific recommendations we had in that report.

With respect to the Internet reach to younger people, this is, as I mentioned, the first thing I realized, that my office needed to really modernize its technological platform if we were to get into the business of interactive, or even get complaints on the Internet, which I want to do. We even have CD-ROMs existing. We just have one for kids, in both official languages, where they teach kids...they communicate. We can't; our platform cannot accommodate it. It's not powerful enough. It's outdated.

So we have much concern about this issue, yes, and we are very aware that we need to diversify our methods of reaching out to Canadians, to be modern, and to get on the Internet for the youth. I think we need to do that urgently.

[Translation]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you.

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

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ms. Adam, I am very interested in your invitation to closer work relationships between your Office and the committee. It is greatly appreciated and desired by me and, I hope, the other members of the committee.

You surely know that Air Canada has testified before us recently. We proposed a concrete solution to simplify the complaints principle. I believe I have noted during your interventions that you like concrete things. Perhaps—and I do say perhaps, it is not an accusation—the same is true for the Commissioner of Official Languages. Perhaps frustrated Francophones and Anglophones who are in minority situations are not aware of the procedure for lodging a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages. I don't want to give Mr. Robichaud more work, but perhaps this is the case.

In your communications strategy, could you not develop a single form so that people can know first that you exist and second how they can communicate their dissatisfaction with what is happening in their community?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I fully agree that we must be more visible, better known and more accessible, and in different ways. We must, insofar as is possible, make the process easier for citizens. Too often citizens must exert themselves to lodge a complaint. It is much easier... Most of us do not lodge complaints. Research shows that each complaint filed represents at least 100 others. We can therefore multiply the number of complaints received by 100.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The complaints about Air Canada?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Fifty complaints multiplied by 100.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will continue. Thank you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: We therefore have to treat a complaint as important because there are many citizens around a single complaint. All the institutions designated to receive complaints say they have not received that many. I'm sorry, but people don't like to complain, as the Senator says; nobody wants to be identified as a whiner.

• 1640

Mr. Yvon Godin: [Editor's note: inaudible]

Ms. Dyane Adam: I don't want to speak for you. So we want to take that seriously and make it easy. That is truly my vision of things, and we will do everything possible, with the available resources, to simplify the process greatly.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I am the one who thanks you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would like to ask a question if I may.

I listened closely to the Commissioner's invitation to work more closely in cooperation with her Office, and to the wish expressed by most members of this committee to accept this invitation. On a few occasions we have discussed the possibility of tackling a major issue in the fall, for example Part VII of the Act, its application, section 41 and all that. If the Committee asked the Office for help, asked it to prepared a substantial, structured and even targeted file on the issue, would the Office welcome this type of cooperation or request for help?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, surely. Of course if it requires too many resources, I will say so, because I have limits, but we have a great store of knowledge. As the saying goes, we have been living with Part VII since 1988. I don't know how the interpreters translated that. We have expertise and I think we could even optimize the resources you have here by giving you, in a format that would be easy for the committee members to absorb, everything you need for your thinking, your reports and your actions. I think our entire team is ready to support you in that way.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I intend—and I have discussed it with my Co-Chair, Ms. Maheu, who is sorry she could not be here today, as was the case for me yesterday—to present that to the steering committee before we adjourn in June so that we can prepare a sort of action plan for the fall. I will make it my duty to raise this issue, your offer of help and the possible subjects we would like to tackle.

Senator Gauthier, it's your turn.

Ms. Dyane Adam: May I insist on one point? Excuse me, Senator Gauthier.

You talked about planning. In my case there are always emergencies that can pop up, but if we could plan the program for the year sooner rather than later, it would be much easier for me to manage my resources and to reconcile your expectations and needs with our other obligations. I believe that the key to successful cooperation here is planning as much as possible.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We understand each other. Thank you.

Senator Gauthier, then Mr. Godin.

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

Ms. Adam, I have a lot of questions, but I will group them as much as possible.

A week or two ago, we had witnesses from Transport Canada. I was ready to ask questions about complaints of course, which are Mr. Robichaud's responsibility. You say in your report, on page 55, that there is an agreement between you and Transport Canada on the question of air security. The two people who represented Transport Canada, Ms. Dufour and Mr. Pigeon, I believe, did not seem to be aware of the agreement between you and Transport Canada. Is there an agreement or did you make a mistake in your report when you wrote that there was an agreement?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I did not say that the Commissioner never made a mistake, but let's say that what is in the report has been reasonably well checked. There is an agreement. Michel could give a brief...

Mr. Michel Robichaud: In fact, there are two agreements, Mr. Senator, one on security searches and one on safety announcements in flight.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you. I would have helped me to have someone from your office there to tell those witnesses that they were wrong. Perhaps the Office of the Commissioner could be better represented here from now on. When witnesses answer questions, we could ask someone from the Office if it is true. Sometimes people may be telling us fairy tales.

• 1645

Let us go back to your 2001-2002 budget, which I have examined over the last few days. Corporate Services are discussed on page 21. Planned spending for 2001-2002 is about $3.448 million, whereas in 2000-2001 it was $4.5 million. Why is there such a decrease?

Ms. Dyane Adam: The Office's Corporate Services include a lot of things. In addition to administration, there is everything that supports operations, even the legal side. Why is there a decrease? In 2000-2001, as part of the request I talked about earlier, we received $500,000 from Treasury Board to increase the power of the technology platform. It was a spot credit for the year to study and prepare for the conversion of the Office's technology platform. We had also brought forward a surplus of about $400,000, for a total of about $1 million. We do not forecast any balance forward this year, except for $120,000 I believe. I cannot and could not confirm, at the time the forecasts were written, if I would receive additional votes under the Treasury Board's Program Integrity.

Today it seems that it is confirmed. There should therefore be an additional $1.3 million in my 2001-2002 budget. These numbers are therefore almost wrong today, Mr. Senator.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am more or less satisfied with your answer. On the other hand, I note that there are 34 FTEs, and at all times. Does that mean that there has been no decrease in human resources? This is a game of financial credits you are playing with Treasury Board.

Ms. Dyane Adam: You must understand that we had received half a million dollars for a technology platform and that this was a spot amount granted to the Office of the Commissioner for...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I understood that.

Ms. Dyane Adam: This is not a matter of hiring people. Nor are we using the surplus brought forward from the previous year to hire people because these monies will only last one year. So in essence...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You don't really know. I would like you to explain to me what you mean. Your wording is fantastic. On page 7, when you talk about immigration, you write:

[...] through its immigration policy, must “enhance the vitality of the English and French minority communities”[...]

Section 41 says that the government commits itself. That's where the problem arises. If the government makes a commitment, that only means that by law these are good intentions. On the other hand, if the government must do it, as you write in your text, it will have more difficulty. That should be the key word in the study of Part VII. First and foremost, the committee should agree on that, before calling you, because that will make a lot of waves. I think that it would be wise for the committee to define a clear and specific position if Mr. Chairman intends to study section 41 and Part VII. I think the word “must” should be used. Madam Commissioner seems to agree with me. I hope that all committee members will also. I am looking at Mr. Sauvageau...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I agree.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Madam Commissioner, do you wish to comment?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I don't think any questions have been asked.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. I yield the floor to Mr. Godin. Then it will be Mr. Sauvageau's turn, after which we will adjourn.

• 1650

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Gauthier raised a good point when he talked about Transport Canada. He then talked about searches. I would like to know the definition of “search”. Let's talk about airport security. Does that apply only in airports like the ones in Ottawa or Montréal? And what about the regional level? I could talk about Air Canada and Air Nova, but that would be another debate. What is this about? What is security? Answer quickly because we don't have much time.

I also want to talk about the RCMP in New Brunswick. Do you have enough money to take on the RCMP in New Brunswick and get them to offer us services in both official languages? Where are we at? I think it is important. We could have a brief accounting on this topic.

Mr. Michel Robichaud: When we talk about searches and security, we are talking about what happens when you have to go through the little sentry box before going to the boarding gate. You are searched then to be sure that you don't have any material that is not allowed. In this context, it applies to all airports in the country that have significant traffic.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You talk about significant traffic. I live in Acadie—Bathurst, which is about 80% Francophone. Who uses the Bathurst airport? What is an important city? Are we talking about Montréal or Toronto, or are we talking about a locality like mine?

Mr. Michel Robichaud: An airport is deemed local or national based on the number of people who go through the airport.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That means that at home security doesn't count. We come under the Bathurst security measures, then we arrive in Montréal without going through security measures and we leave without any questions being asked.

Mr. Michel Robichaud: Bathurst is a municipal airport and is therefore not subject to the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I know we don't have much time. Let's talk about security. If at the Bathurst airport I have gone through the security measures, I don't go through any other security measure afterwards. I arrive in Montréal and I can go anywhere without going through any other security measure. I am now in another important airport, like the one in Toronto, after having gone through security measures in a language that is not mine.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes. You will submit to a security search, but it will be done in a language other than French. I think that is what you mean.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. I can then go to Montréal, Toronto or Vancouver, or in other regions, but the search will have been done in Bathurst. Is the search done only when we leave for a foreign country or when we travel within our own country?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I will try to be clear. The search is done in all the airports, because even a small municipal airport is subject to a security law. But the search will not necessarily be done in both official languages. That is the problem.

Your small airport in Bathurst, it seems, is not subject to the requirement to offer bilingual services when there is a search. Is that it? Is that O.K.?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, it's not O.K. because the problem is still there.

Why should someone who lives in Montréal, where there is a big airport, be subjected to security measures that are different from those to which I am subjected in Bathurst? I get aboard an Air Canada plane. I get aboard any plane, if we are talking about security, what difference is there between security at the Bathurst, Montréal, Toronto, Timmins, Ontario, or Sudbury airports? We are talking about security when we fly.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Mr. Godin, you raise a problem.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Is there a problem, yes or no?

Ms. Dyane Adam: There is no doubt that we don't always offer the services in both official languages, depending on the nature of the airport, and that is a problem. Even if you would like to be treated in the same manner throughout the country, whichever airport you are in, that is not the situation at this time and the act and the regulations do not require it.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There is no... [Editor's note: inaudible]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Godin. Madam Commissioner, on behalf of my fellow members, I would like to ask you one thing. If someone from your Office could take the time to look at the interventions made before this committee on the issue of air transportation and comment on them, it would be much appreciated.

• 1655

We continue this exercise and I do not know if we will have results before the end of the session in June. One way or another, I do not think that it is over. I therefore hope that we will have the opportunity of cooperating with your Office on this. The security issues raised by Mr. Godin are still very important.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There is the RCMP in there.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I will provide an update. We sent the final report to both the plaintiff and to the RCMP about the complaints against the RCMP in the Atlantic provinces. I believe we have received the responses of both the RCMP and the plaintiffs.

Mr. Michel Robichaud: Yes.

Ms. Dyane Adam: We are at the next step in the investigation process, which is the finalization of the report, in which we integrate the comments of both the plaintiffs and the RCMP. It will be issued very shortly.

Mr. Michel Robichaud: In its final form.

Ms. Dyane Adam: In its final form. It's the report that will probably... Since a judicial recourse has been taken by the plaintiffs, it is before the court. We note that many of the arguments are based on the Commissioner's report.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau, do you have any further questions?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I may be impertinent in saying what I have been thinking since a while ago. In terms of writing our report, you have offered us you cooperation on the issue of Air Canada, for example. I know that our role is political and that you are a public servant of the State and that is not the same. How, then, can this cooperation be extended when we will write a report since there is an important link between the recommendations of the report and their application?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I am an agent of Parliament. I am therefore not a public servant in the strict sense...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Excuse me, an agent. I was in error.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I serve Parliament and you are a parliamentarian. Agreed? The nuance is important.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are right, and I apologize.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I am responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Act and for making recommendations. As you know, I have no power of enforcement. I am therefore not part of the implementation. It is the Treasury Board and all the other institutions, like the RCMP, who must implement the law and obey it. I am only there to call them to order and tell them how to do things.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: So in that sense I believe we have a role.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Now, in this same type of cooperation, should the committee, in its work, take your future reports into account? Is there a link between the two?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Should you take my reports into account?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Not your old reports but your future ones. We will study certain questions or issues here in committee. You are currently studying other in terms of your own report. Should a link be made between the two, between your upcoming reports and our studies?

Ms. Dyane Adam: There could be a link, such as anticipating hot issues, if you...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's it.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Let's use the Immigration Act. Although this committee is not studying the bill, it is being read in the House and it is possible that it may have repercussions on official languages. In fact, the more this committee is aware of legislative measures being studied by Parliament and the more it intervenes, the better. Then we are practising prevention, we are acting in a proactive manner.

You have a power that no Commissioner can replace in these situations. He or she can only support you.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, you have a question?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask the clerk to obtain a copy of Ms. Adam's testimony before the Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders today, which I think would greatly help members understand what we mean by the active participation of Madam Commissioner of Official Languages.

I relied on my experience in the Public Accounts Committee, in this very room, 10 years ago. We had modernized our way of hearing witnesses. We had changed the custom whereby a witness could read a speech for 20 or 30 minutes, followed by a 30-second question that he answered in 15 minutes, especially when he knew we had 15 minutes. It was not satisfactory. That is why we changed the procedure, which became more productive.

• 1700

Here is my question for Madam Commissioner. If you need the committee's help—you may need it—certain people here could help you in your work, but not within the scope of the current budget, which I find rather modest. Mr. Chairman, the committee on the Library of Parliament's budget is bigger than yours. It is about $20 million per year whereas yours is about $11.3 million. The committee on the Library of Parliament meets once a year. The two chairs rule. There are no members or senators, as far as I know, who are really interested in that.

Here, we are interested in having an efficient Office of the Commissioner and it needs money for that. So if we can help you, I am prepared to offer mine.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Thank you and I will use it. I will keep you informed of my needs.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Don't leave right away, Madam Commissioner; I would like to address a few basic points.

I point out to committee members who are also members of the steering committee that it would be timely to meet soon, at the end of May or the beginning of June. I would also like to point out to those who are not members of the steering committee that they should send their topics or suggestions on what should be discussed by the steering committee to the co-chairs as soon as possible.

Second, I am informing you that the co-chairs of the committee have sent a copy of our report on CPAC to the CRTC so that it can take it into account in its coming deliberations.

Now I notice that we do not have quorum since we are missing an opposition senator. At this time we can therefore not formally adopt the document we discussed today in theory. We need a quorum.

I would also point out to members of the committee that the regulation stipulates that if a committee, whatever it may be, does not approve or debate its estimates, they are presumed to have been adopted. Therefore, strictly speaking, if we do not have a motion because we do not have a quorum when we return on the 29th or 30th of May, they will be deemed to have been adopted.

On the other hand, and I am going out on a limb here, I believe I detected among some of you a desire to let the government know that the committee would like the votes for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages should be higher than what was presented today. If I have read the wishes of the members of the committee correctly, it might be appropriate to distribute a notice of motion before our meeting on the Tuesday following our return because it must be received 48 hours before the meeting, unless we unanimously decide that we do not want to receive such a motion. I hope I was direct enough.

Madam Commissioner, I thank you once again for your presence, but especially for your clear intent to cooperate with the committee. I believe you can see that this intent is shared since, despite the fact that we started our work a little late, in mid-March, we have already produced a report.

We may not have the time to finish a report on Air Canada, but I hope that we will at least have an interim report that will raise questions that we will be able to discuss this summer. I believe there is a willingness on the part of the committee members to set up a schedule or a work plan for the fall because there are in fact a lot of questions in the air that we must probe.

On behalf of the committee members, I thank you for your presence here today.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Thank you.

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