LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, April 15, 2002

1535

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.))

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne (Legal Counsel, Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism, Department of Justice Canada)

1540

1545

Ms. Sylvie Doire (Legal Counsel, Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism, Department of Justice Canada)

1550

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Ms. Sylvie Doire

1555

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Sylvie Doire

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Sylvie Doire

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Ms. Sylvie Doire

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1600

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair

The Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1605

The Hon. Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Ms. Sylvie Doire

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Sylvie Doire

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Sylvie Doire

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1610

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

1615

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

1620

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

1625

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Viola Léger (New-Brunswick, Lib.)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Viola Léger

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Viola Léger

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Viola Léger

1630

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1635

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1640

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Hon. Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1645

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic, Lib.)

1650

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Gérard Binet

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

1655

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

1700

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Joint Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1705

The Joint Chair

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

1710

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Ms. Sylvie Doire

The Joint Chair

Ms. Sylvie Doire

1715

The Joint Chair

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Duchesne

The Joint Chair

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 031

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, April 15, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.

We resume our work on Part VII of the Official Languages Act, concentrating today on the Department of Justice in particular.

We have before us two persons from the Department of Justice: Ms. Sylvie Doire, Legal Counsel, Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism, and Ms. Andrée Duchesne, also Legal Counsel, Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism.

For committee members' information, tomorrow we will welcome Ms. Robillard, President of the Treasury Board, to discuss the Treasury Board's new policy on government transformations. Next Monday, we were supposed to receive the Minister of Justice, Mr. Cauchon, but the clerk has just informed me that it may be difficult for the Minister to be here. I will see that we clarify that. Next week, we will welcome the Commissioner of Official Languages to talk about estimates. So you have an overview of the next four meetings.

We then intend to continue the study of Part VII of the Act, focusing on immigration. We will start with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and will be receiving the Minister, Mr. Coderre. After that, we will hear from organizations wishing to give us their comments on the subject.

That's the committee's schedule as it currently stands.

Mr. Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, under the Standing Orders, or perhaps procedures or custom, senators and members usually receive their documents two days in advance. This committee is known to be somewhat tardy in delivering reports, questions and documents. Today, for example, it was one o'clock when I received my document. This subject is perhaps more familiar to me than others, but, in general, it would be useful for us to have a policy clearly stating that documents must be distributed to parliamentarians two days in advance, that is to say at least 48 hours in advance. At the municipal level, people call me and I know what they're doing. At the federal level, we're given the documents at the last minute. That doesn't make much sense.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Gauthier. Your point is entirely valid. It would be natural for us to receive our documents on the Friday preceding our meetings, which are held on Monday or Tuesday. Ms. Maheu and I will discuss the matter with our clerks and research officers in order to improve the situation.

Thank you.

We are now going to hear the presentation by our two witnesses. We will then have a question period.

Ms. Duchesne, the floor is yours.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne (Legal Counsel, Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism, Department of Justice Canada): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

First, allow us to thank you on behalf of the Department of Justice Canada for this opportunity to report on the Department's progress in implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Some introductions are in order. My name is Andrée Duchesne and this is my colleague, Sylvie Doire. We are both with the Office of Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism at the Department. I am also Coordinator of the Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice, POLAJ.

Our presentation today will be divided into two parts. I will be reporting to you on the Department's progress to date, and Ms. Doire will describe to you the new approach the Department intends to take starting in 2002.

As you know, section 41 of the Official Languages Act is binding on the federal government and imposes a commitment on it for which it is accountable.

Since 1994, 29 departments and agencies, including the Department of Justice Canada, have had to produce action plans defining their roles in the development of the official language minority communities.

We thought it useful at the outset to outline to you how the Department of Justice views this clientele, the official language minority communities, with regard to the application of section 41, for the ultimate purpose of making its contribution to their development and vitality.

The first component of the Department's mission is its commitment to ensure that all Canadians, including members of the official language minority communities, have an accessible, efficient and fair system of justice. That's the first part of this clientele, a general clientele, in particular citizens who use the justice system.

We also serve a more legal clientele, consisting in particular of players in the justice system who clearly must also ensure access to the system or take part in providing access to the system in the official language of the official language minority communities. We have therefore directed our action on the basis of these two groups.

I'm now going to outline some of the very concrete and sustainable things the Department has done. I don't want to force you to listen to a lengthy recital of our achievements, which you can read on the Department of Justice's Web site.

I thought I would first describe the Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice, which is administered jointly by the Department of Justice and the Department of Canadian Heritage. The program has been in existence since 1981, and celebrated its twentieth birthday in 2001. As I mentioned, the program is jointly managed by the two departments, but also involves the active participation of official language community organizations, particularly legal organizations. Those organizations are represented on both the program's management committee and steering committee.

Over the past 20 years, POLAJ has established a range of legal tools as well as jurilinguistic tools designed to provide our Francophone jurists from outside Quebec with tools and services that will enable them to serve their target communities in the official language of their choice, but also in accordance with the system of law that governs the province where those communities live.

We have also made a POLAJ Web site available to this system which is independent from the site of the Department of Justice Canada, but which the Department obviously manages and updates. That site serves as the gateway to all resources available through the network devoted to access to justice in both official languages. We have observed that the site receives an average of 1,300 hits a month. That figure obviously fluctuates.

For the past eight years, the Department has also been funding associations of French-speaking jurists in the common law provinces and their national federation. We support the projects of those associations of French-speaking jurists, which were mainly designed to sensitize and inform parties to court proceedings and even the official language minority communities.

I would now like to emphasize two things. First, I would like to say that the projects funded by the Department are projects based directly on the needs of these communities, which are adapted to their needs. They are not projects in which we merely fund the translation of books intended for the majority clientele.

¹ (1540)

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that our support in this area can also take other forms. The Department has seconded a lawyer, to whom it is paying two years' salary, to the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario to fill the position of Director General of the association.

Lastly, I would like to clarify one point, the funding or support we provided to these associations is not in any way conditional on the positions they may make before the courts. That goes without saying.

Another example of our current progress is our policies. We have recently adopted, at a few years' interval, two policies which, we believe, are significant for the objective of section 41. The first is the Policy Statement and Guidelines for Public Participation, which includes a section on the Official Languages Act and examines the principles of public participation in the context of language. There is also the Policy on Legislative Bijuralism, adopted in 1995, under which each language version of federal statutory enactments, the two major legal systems ultimately governing Canadians across the country, the civil law and the common law, are integrated in each of those language versions. This enables Canadians to read and understand federal legislative texts in their official language, depending on the legal system in use in their province of residence.

We are also taking an active part in developing the pilot projects currently under way in Manitoba. Our partner in this effort is the Government of Manitoba. The objectives of these pilot projects, which are being conducted in St-Pierre-Jolys and subsequently, in a few years, in St. Boniface, Manitoba, are to deliver in French and English services related to the administration of justice; to use modern technology to increase the use of the minority official language in criminal proceedings, to draft in the minority official language the documents provided to citizens when they are arrested or charged. What is interesting about these projects is that they are not only based on official languages, but they also apply to other jurisdictions across the country.

Lastly, I would also like to tell you about a project currently under way at the Department which we have called the Inventory project. This is a national study on the state of minority official language legal and judicial services. The study's objectives are: to provide quantitative and qualitative data on services available, to identify the obstacles to accessing justice in both official languages, to find solutions appropriate to the situations inventoried and to create an inventory of innovative practices across the country. The study obviously covers areas of federal jurisdiction such as criminal law, bankruptcy and divorce. To date, we have consulted more than 359 persons across the country as part of the study. Of that number, some are lawyers in private practice, judges, court officers and representatives of provincial and territorial governments as well as French-speaking lawyers associations.

No other study conducted to date, prior to this study, enabled us to obtain quantitative data. That's why the Department of Justice decided to announce the study in 2002, even though other national and provincial studies had previously been conducted. We are not only confident that the study will enable us to inventory promising and innovative practices across the country, we are also convinced that it will underscore the importance of drawing on all existing resources, financial and non-financial, relating to access to justice in both official languages. It should probably enable us to establish partnerships at all levels, with universities, governments, lawyers associations and with the jurilinguistic centres associated with POLAJ or elsewhere.

Lastly, allow me to describe the structure that has been developed and put in place at the Department of Justice Canada to support Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Approximately one year ago, we created the function of Official Languages Champion, which is performed by the Associate Deputy Minister at Justice. We have also created the office to which my colleague and I belong. We believe that this structure, which provides stable support for this part of the Official Languages Act, is an indication of the positive way in which matters are developing in this area within the Department.

I will now give the floor to my colleague, Sylvie Doire, who will make a clear presentation on developments in this area within the Department.

¹ (1545)

Ms. Sylvie Doire (Legal Counsel, Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism, Department of Justice Canada): In 2001, the Department of Justice received a model that had been developed by the Department of Canadian Heritage for coordinating the implementation of Part VII. They submitted a document to us that was a guide for developing an evaluation framework, a framework that enabled us to determine, within our activities, whether we were successfully achieving the objectives of Part VII.

We began this arduous process. We had to meet the players from our department, we reviewed all our activities, and we prepared the first draft of what we thought might constitute a logical model, a list of the main activities that could assist us in contributing to the commitment. Wanting to validate the tool, we turned to six groups of persons involved with the justice system, average citizens in various provinces. We travelled to meet approximately 10 persons at each of the meetings, in Winnipeg, Ottawa, Cowansville, Moncton, Sudbury and Quebec City.

Our primary objective was to determine what those individuals thought was Justice Canada's role in contributing to the development and vitality of the official language minority communities. The answers were very interesting.

The key messages that the consultants who took part in the discussions reported to us were that there was a need for greater awareness on the part of officials of the need for an active offer of service. We were told that it was necessary to assign genuinely bilingual personnel. We were informed that the official language majority had to be educated concerning the rights of the minority so that the latter were not perceived as bad guys when they wished to exercise their rights in their own language. We were also told it was important to better publicize our programs and services and, in particular, to explain to them more fully how the Department can enhance the vitality of their communities.

These are simple, clear messages which are not usually sent only to the Department of Justice. They are messages that usually come from all the communities and which have been very carefully noted down and for which measures have already been taken, including those my colleague described to you. But this made us realize how necessary it was to expand the range of our actions, not to limit ourselves to the legal community as such, which is the first intermediary between us and the community which needs to use the justice system because it should also be kept in mind that not all citizens from the official language minority communities are in contact with the justice system. However, when they are, it must of course be ensured that they can deal with that system in their language.

So the steps we have taken, the answers that have been given to us have fed into a process which we have just planned. We are very proud of this. We have put a great deal of energy and resources into it. We have developed a coherent, comprehensive approach to the implementation within the Department of Justice of the commitment provided for in section 41.

Based on the experience of other departments more experienced in the field, such as Health Canada and Industry Canada, we chose to move toward a strategic and truly results-based approach. We expect it will take approximately two years to complete the process.

I want to reassure you right away that our current action plan will continue to be implemented, but it will be completely renewed in April 2004. The action plan will be renewed. First, we have just gathered a great deal of information from persons involved with the justice system, whom I spoke about a moment ago, but also through the Inventory, through which the official language minority legal community as a whole has been mobilized. We communicated via the Internet, asking them to respond to a survey, through telephone and person-to-person interviews, through discussions with experts in the field, in order to discuss solutions that had been advanced, not just problems.

¹ (1550)

So we have truly invaluable information. Now we have to go inside our department and meet each of the key stakeholders in order to put back into perspective, based on the needs that have been put before us, what is the role, what is part of our mandate and what we can do to meet those needs.

Once this effort is complete, a first draft of the strategic plan will be developed and we will discuss it with a group of persons consisting of representatives of the official language minority communities, both jurists and individuals involved with the legal system, members of lawyers associations, members of other federal departments, because we have activities interrelated with those of other departments, but also of provincial departments.

So all the players will be around the table to discuss the problems and solutions that have been suggested, as well as measures that can be adopted and possible coordination.

From that will come our strategic planning, which we will then be able to implement. So, as I told you, we expect this process will be complete in April 2004. In the meantime, an interim action plan will be put forward. The interim action plan will be the current action plan from which we will remove the objectives that have already been met or which are not relevant, and to which we will add all the objectives we are pursuing in the context of the strategic planning effort.

My colleague and I have outlined the progress made at our department and the new approach which we intend to take and have actually begun to take. I thank you for your attention and invite you to ask questions.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Sauvageau, I apologize for being late, but it was beyond my control.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Thank you for your presentation. I found it interesting and disappointing. It was interesting in part, but the interim part is disappointing. You're postponing. I have a few questions. I'm going to go quickly because we don't have a lot of time, and, if I can come back, I will.

Ms. Doire, you spoke of Heritage Canada's role in coordinating the implementation of Part VII, but Mr. Dion also has an important role in coordination and the Official Languages Act.

I would like to know how many meetings you have had with Mr. Dion or with the officials of Mr. Dion's department on the coordination of the Official Languages Act since April 2001.

Ms. Sylvie Doire: First of all, I'll take the liberty of telling you that Mr. Dion does indeed have a very important role. The coordination role I spoke to you about is the role provided for in section 42 of the Official Languages Act, which, with regard to the implementation of the tools for managing and coordinating this important commitment, provides that it is under the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage. So everything concerning the programs of the various departments is coordinated under the aegis of Heritage Canada.

Now, with regard to meetings, to my knowledge, I have had none personally. My colleague can answer for herself.

¹ (1555)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: To date, the meetings with Mr. Dion's department, Intergovernmental Affairs, have mainly been held with the other part of the Department of Justice, the Official Languages Law Group, which plays the role of the Department's legal counsel on Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Our role is a coordination role with regard to the Department's action plan for the implementation of section 41.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but we know that section 41 is the cornerstone of the advancement of the Official Languages Act. I'm asking you how many meetings there have been in all between you, who are the group responsible for the action plan on section 41 of the Official Languages Act at the Department of Justice, and the senior minister responsible for coordination. I say “senior” in that he will be called upon to bear a large degree of responsibility for his involvement.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I'll tell you very simply that, between the section 41 coordinators, that is the Heritage Canada network, and Minister Dion's staff, to my knowledge, there may perhaps have been a few meetings. Personally, I attended only one meeting at the end of March.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much.

Now, would you correct me if I'm wrong? The official translation of the Constitution of 1982, the 20th anniversary of which we will soon be celebrating, has not yet been adopted 20 years later. Is that correct?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: What I can tell you on that subject is that I believe the versions have already been forwarded to the respective provincial governments, but I could...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That was in 1990, 12 years ago.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I could get back to you with a more formal answer to that question.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Perfect.

Ms. Doire, you spoke about a coherent and comprehensive action to implement section 41. You are at the Department of Justice, where all words are important. Is section 41, in your coherent and comprehensive action plan, declaratory or binding?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: We're not here to discuss the legal scope of section 41, Mr. Sauvageau. I don't work for the unit that is legal counsel...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So you are promoting something comprehensive and coherent, but we don't yet fully know what it is, although we are coherent in its promotion.

I would like to ask you whether your two action plans, those for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, were prepared by your department or by an outside group. I'm talking about the two action plans you sent us.

Ms. Sylvie Doire: It was our department.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It was your department. Is it normal for them to be virtually the same?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In fact, there is a single action plan spread over three years, for 1999 to 2002. It terminated on March 31, 2002. It is a three-year action plan in this case, and, under section 42, the Department of Canadian Heritage asks us to produce a progress report each year. So what is produced each year is a document that takes the action plan and reports on progress made on an annual basis.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So it's entirely normal for it to be a virtual copy.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: For the action plan, yes. For the progress report, it should outline progress made.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: With regard to progress, in 2000-2001, for example, 60 employees took the Écrire simplement program. There were 60 as well in 1999-2000. Were they the same employees? Was it offered to the same ones?

I can understand that the first two columns, Objectives and Principal Measures, are the same--I thought, jokingly, that it was Groupaction that had done it--but it should be different under Outputs.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: It all depends. Those programs are offered to employees. There's a maximum capacity, a maximum number of people who can work there.

Ms. Sylvie Doire: Please, Mr. Sauvageau, could you...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The two are on page 9, by chance. The two are at the bottom of page 9. It's the same program, it's the same number of employees, but it's not the same year.

º (1600)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: The program was offered two years in a row and that was the maximum number of students.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's probably it.

Now, without taking out your book, on page 23 of the 1999-2000 plan and page 34 of the 2000-2001 plan, the wording of the sentence has been changed. On section 41 compliance, it states: “The compliance with section 41 of the Official Languages Act in activities of the Department of Justice is greater.” That's for 1999-2000. For 2000-2001, it reads: “Compliance with section 41 of the OLA in activities of the Department of Justice continues to rise.”

Why doesn't it say that compliance is assured or that the Department is complying? That may be a technical question, but when compliance is rising, that means that something will be forgotten, but that that's not serious. In any case, I interpret it that way. I'm not a legal expert, but it seems to me that, if you say that compliance is assured by the Department of Justice or that compliance with section 41 by the Department of Justice is rising... Is that what you mean? Why isn't that what is written?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Mr. Sauvageau, the objectives of the action plans are obviously ultimately intended to change a departmental culture so that it complies on its own with section 41 in all of its activities and in each of its major priority areas. This has to become a reflex. So that's the ultimate objective of the action plans.

Of course, the wordings you are referring to right now likely result from the fact that there were two different drafters. Over the years, the responsibility of departmental staff has changed. Obviously, what you see in that wording also results from the personal style of the person who coordinated the work.

Furthermore, I would say that there is an evolution under way. When I referred a moment ago to two very important policies at the Department which, in their conception, embody the spirit of section 41, it was to that progress, that evolution that I was referring.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'll come back to this.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): We're going to move on to the next round.

Senator Gauthier.

The Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Senator Jean-Robert GauthierI would like some clarification to start with. In the documents I have, it states that the action plan covers the period from June 1, 1999 to May 31, 2002. Is that true?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: That's March 31, 2002.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: A moment ago, you said March 30, 2001.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Perhaps...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: What is the period?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: The most recent plan covers the period from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2002.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's March 31, 2002, not May 31.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: No. It follows the fiscal year cycle.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Possibly.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In the 2001 annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Commissioner states that the recommendations of the studies she conducted from 1995 until 1999 have yet to be implemented. The results are not clear. What's you answer to that? Is that your area?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I can discuss the question to a certain degree, yes.

The Inventory I referred to obviously comes seven years after the first study in 1995 by Mr. Goldbloom, who was the Commissioner of Official Languages at the time, which concerned the equitable use of English and French in Canadian courts. The Inventory in a way differs from or complements that study by attempting to obtain quantitative information. You know as well as I that the entire question of supply and demand of legal services in the minority official language is a vicious circle which we are ultimately unable to break out of. There's no demand because there's no supply; there's no supply because there's no demand.

In the study that we have conducted, and for which we are awaiting a report in the spring 2002, we wanted to obtain quantitative information to complement the Commissioner's report. It goes without saying, however, that that did not prevent us from nevertheless taking certain concrete actions.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a few minutes left, Madam. I have more questions to ask you.

What concerns me is that, for example, in practical terms, for the Contraventions Act, the Department of Justice was forced to review its positions on contraventions. The courts, including Judge Blais, who was the presiding judge, gave us one more year starting on March 23, if I remember correctly, until next year to put [Editor's Note: Inaudible] the regulations with the provinces, in particular Ontario. I'm not a lawyer, but I know there's a difference between a contravention and an information.

And with regard to contraventions before Judge Blais, I'm going to talk to you about information. This is not recent; for years we have been asking Justice to ensure that the rights of the official language communities are honoured, particularly in informations. The contraventions were usually bilingual. As for informations, the police officer or the person laying the information, which complements the form, usually does so in his own language, as a result of which the accused has a document which is not in his first language.

The Department has long been aware of this problem. Nothing has been done. So that means that the federal government has failed in its duty by not making the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code or to the Official Languages Act.

º (1605)

I don't know which of the two you used, but you used one of them. It was probably the Criminal Code that you used to confirm that the accused is entitled to receive an information in his mother tongue. Am I right in saying that or am I wrong?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I don't believe the Criminal Code expressly makes that provision at this time. You are right in that sense.

Ms. Sylvie Doire: However, I may add...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I don't know about the Criminal Code. You have been aware for two or three years now that the problem exists. Nothing has been done.

I raised a number of questions in the Senate concerning contraventions. I received nice long answers which said absolutely nothing and which had probably been written by someone who ultimately wanted to qualify the answer.

What I'm interested in is getting results. I ask you the question. It's simple. Why hasn't the Department of Justice clarified the act with respect to information? Why is this still dragging on, Ms. Doire?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: The information is the document used to lay charges against individuals who are accused of committing a crime. That document must be in both official languages. I'm aware of a document that contains that directive. It is the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which appears on the Department of Justice's Web site. If you'll excuse the expression, it's the bible of federal Crown counsel. When a document is authorized by a counsel, counsel has the right to ensure that the document is in the language of the accused.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not the case. In Ontario, at any rate, that's not the case. That may be the case for a contravention.

Ms. Sylvie Doire: If you are referring to the act...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In the case of an information, it's the police officer who completes the file.

Ms. Sylvie Doire: You understand that with respect to the statutes, the federal department's control is obviously limited to federal statutes. The Contraventions Act was implemented in order to use the provincial justice administration which is asked to implement a federal statute. The aspect of the administration of justice which solely concerns the provinces is not our jurisdiction.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Doire.

Your time is up, senator. I will come back to you in the second round.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

First, I would like to understand where you stand in the Department's organization. Can you explain to me where you stand?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In the departmental structure, I repeat, we belong to a newly-created office, an office that has been in existence for perhaps a few years. In the past year, the task of handling justice in official languages programs has been added to its mandate.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Who heads up the office?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: It's a senior counsel, Ms. Suzanne Poirier.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): How many people work there?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Approximately 10 persons work there.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Specifically when did the bureau come into existence?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In fact, the office, as I have just described it to you, has only been in existence for one year.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): To whom does Ms. Poirier report?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: She reports to Mr. Mario Dion, who is the Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): He is the so-called champion. Is that correct?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: That's correct.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Please repeat his family name.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: It's Mr. Dion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Was Mr. Mario Dion invited? I simply wanted to know whether he had been invited. That would clarify things for me.

Is the Department one of the departments subject to the Cabinet declaration of August 1994 that certain departments and agencies should prepare action plans?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So the Department of Justice has been preparing action plans since 1994.

º (1610)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Yes, that's correct.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Would it be possible to obtain a report on the results of those action plans? I was looking at the tables, but I admit it isn't easy to follow the tables. Has an analysis been done of the action plans by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, or by you or the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada or a lawyers association and which would be fairly objective and at the same time critical of the action plans implemented? Does that type of analysis exist?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: The Department's first action plan dates back to 1995 or 1996. At the time, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages conducted a certain evaluation of the action plans of all the departments and agencies that had to produce one. With respect to the Department of Justice, it was noted that more work had to be done in certain areas, in particular in policy development and other things. We were told that we also had to ensure we had performance indicators. Subsequently evaluations were conducted for the Department of Canadian Heritage. In the efforts we've made over the past few months to redirect our action based on results, we have provided for a stage at which we will actually analyze results since 1995.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are you ready to share that analysis with the committee?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Absolutely.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So will you send it to us?

I had two series of questions. I'm going to ask you a question on the implications of the Beaulac decision for the Department and the administration of justice in Canada. You are familiar with the Beaulac decision, which dates back to early 1999? If I'm not mistaken, Beaulac was a major decision for the Department and it required the Department, in the administration of criminal justice, to be institutionally capable--that is to say across the country, without being required to send interpreters or lawyers--to judge people in their mother tongue, in English or in French.

Has there been an effort at the Department to implement Beaulac?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: A certain amount of work is being done internally, within the Department, either through directives issued to our senior counsel or through directives issued to our agents who act for us in criminal matters. So there are specific directives in that case.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Is your office involved in the implementation of Beaulac?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Our office will be more actively involved in the implementation of Beaulac.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It isn't right now?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: It is in a complementary fashion. The application of Beaulac at the Department is obviously the responsibility of the Official Languages Law Group, which is the legal counsel in that area. But we will also be called upon to participate in the justice programs area.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You only deal with Francophonie.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: No. We deal with justice in official languages.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In both official languages?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In both official languages, so in English in Quebec. We work with the Anglophone legal community in Quebec.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I don't understand why you have not been involved in the implementation of Beaulac from the outset because it's really fundamental.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Because we are a completely new unit and because--I'm going to be very honest with you--because the Department of Justice's previous action plans or previous actions may have been less concerted because we had no unit with a clearly established mandate to do so.

º (1615)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Since you have been required to have an action plan, that is to say since 1995-1996, how has the situation evolved regarding the Department's institutional capability and that of the courts to provide services in both official languages? Has it improved? Is it similar to what it was? Has it deteriorated? Do you have supporting figures?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I don't have any supporting figures at this time, but we can of course obtain them and would be pleased to provide you with them. What I can tell you is that more than 30 percent of the Department of Justice's employees are Francophone and, in that case, definitely bilingual.

As to the courts' ability to function in both official languages, I can't give you any figures today.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But that's the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: That's partly the responsibility of the Department of Justice, but also of other institutions. The Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, in particular, normally collates that type of information as well.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If we want to know how many judicial appointments are needed in order to respect the country's linguistic duality, do we have to go to you or to the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Judicial appointments are of course at the Minister's discretion, and significant consideration is given to the need for a judicial system that operates in both official languages, particularly in judicial selection committees, where the minority official language communities are represented and where language is also a criterion, a factor which is considered in the same way as others. It goes without saying that it's not the only factor.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): My time is up. I'll come back later, if possible.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I apologize for being late. I was with our athletes, who were here. I was drawn to them a little more today.

I'm going to pursue my colleague Mr. Bélanger's question. You answered him that 30 percent of employees were Francophone and approximately 30 percent were bilingual. Is it the Francophones who are bilingual? Are 70 percent of Anglophones bilingual?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In fact, what I should have said is that 30 percent of our employees are Francophone and bilingual, of course, but that there is another percentage of our employees, I could also provide you with the figures...

Mr. Yvon Godin: You don't have those figures today. You know that the Francophones are bilingual, but you don't know how many Anglophones are bilingual.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: No I don't have the figures at this time, but I could of course obtain them for you. But 30 percent of our employees are definitely able to work...

Mr. Yvon Godin: If they're Francophone, they're bilingual.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I believe that that, in a way, is part of the nature of Canada.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's why we have a problem today.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In actual fact, I would say that more and more of our lawyers are completely bilingual, regardless whether their mother tongue is English or French.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Don't you think we're going backwards? In New Brunswick, for example, we're focusing on bilingualism in the RCMP. They're appointing unilingual Anglophone senior officers. That's part of justice. Is this aspect being looked at in your department?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Yes we're looking at that in our department. Moreover, the RCMP had a particularly important role to play in the pilot projects we are managing jointly with the Government of Manitoba. The St-Pierre-Jolys detachment had a very large Francophone majority, and that detachment was, as it were, altered by an administrative decision, which complicated the implementation of the pilot projects, since of course staff was no longer as bilingual. Lastly, there were negotiations with the RCMP, and the situation was rectified, which enabled the St-Pierre-Jolys pilot project to continue.

Mr. Yvon Godin: What is the status of that Manitoba pilot project? Is it headed in the right direction? Is it positive? Could it be implemented across the country?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I'll admit quite honestly that the pilot project is one year behind schedule as a result of the negotiations with the RCMP and some discussions about resources and the evaluation of certain pieces of software which must be used to translate certain official documents. It has been back under way in the past month or two, and the project should now give us a promising model to implement in other jurisdictions where there is a high concentration of members of the minority official language community.

º (1620)

Mr. Yvon Godin: Do you think that's encouraging, in 2002, if you look at the problem in New Brunswick, where the RCMP's actions with respect to bilingualism are contested. New Brunswick is a province that has been declared bilingual under section 88 of the Constitution.

We were talking about New Brunswick, but we can look at the situation here in Ottawa. A complaint has been filed against the RCMP, which cannot have bilingual staff on certain days. Francophones show up at the bottom of the hill to go up to Parliament and they are unable to obtain bilingual services here in Ottawa. Don't you think that's a bit discouraging, after all the work we've done, Mr. Dion's appointment and the government's concerns? We have a problem here in Ottawa, the capital of the country. So do you think the government is really taking bilingualism seriously? I wouldn't say that bilingualism is the only issue; both official languages should be respected in our country. I think something is missing somewhere.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: All I can say in response to your question... I can't give you a personal opinion--that goes without saying--but I can tell you that...

Mr. Yvon Godin: Give me a professional opinion.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I can tell you that the RCMP is the responsibility of the Solicitor General of Canada, not the Department of Justice Canada, of course.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There is the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice. Someone somewhere hands out traffic tickets. Someone is taking action, and somewhere Justice is required to handle certain things as well.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Yes, but the Department of Justice does not interfere in the RCMP's actions, of course. The internal management of the RCMP is the Solicitor General's responsibility.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I've mentioned this and it's something I'm going to raise personally with the RCMP and the Official Languages Committee tomorrow morning or Wednesday morning at the latest, but if you look at what is going on right now, it's the same government. We can toss the ball back and forth as much as we want, but there is a Prime Minister in the country, there is an elected government and there are persons responsible.

What's going on now? Don't you believe that this entire matter is advancing very slowly. As I said a moment ago, I'm not asking you to give your personal opinion, but it's a slow matter that is not being taken seriously.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: It's a matter that requires a very significant change in culture, particularly for the machinery of government as a whole. Right now, I would say conditions are probably not ideal, but they are favourable for this matter to progress. We at the Department feel that the fact that our unit has been created and assigned resources and that we finally intend to redirect our action based on very specific results constitutes a very significant change in culture for the Department.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's what I don't understand. Why would it be a change in culture? Unless I'm completely ignorant, I thought that official languages were accepted a long time ago.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I would like to answer that, when I say change in culture, I mean a culture that is established at every stage of the decision-making process, in all the Department's operations. I don't necessarily mean simply service to the public. We're talking about policy development, consultations with the community from the moment a policy begins to go through a specific development process.

We're also talking about consultations. My colleague spoke to you about target groups. That was the first time the Department of Justice had held consultations with target groups; it definitely will not be the last time. We work regularly with associations of French-speaking lawyers, and the positions expressed before the courts are obviously the responsibility of another decision-making order.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I was in Moncton last year when the French-speaking jurists had their meeting, and they spoke out clearly at that time. How should one speak out? Doesn't the Department know there's a problem? It's action we need now. We can't study this another 200 years.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: The Department is aware that action must be taken; that goes without saying. The Department is also accountable to other authorities. It is not the only organization that decides on the implementation of such and such an aspect of the act.

Section 41, the federal government's commitment, is not binding solely on the Department of Justice. There are other government partners as well that must be party to those decisions, and the authorities or groups put in place by Intergovernmental Affairs under Mr. Dion's impetus will probably make that change. They are contributing of course to the cooperation between the departments.

º (1625)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Duchesne. Time is up. Do I put you down for a second round?

Mr. Yvon Godin: I haven't gone to the House.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Léger.

Senator Viola Léger (New-Brunswick, Lib.): Thank you. I too am an average citizen.

First, Ms. Duchesne, if I understood correctly, this is a new entity.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: It's a new entity, yes.

Senator Viola Léger: So I imagine you have had this new staff for a year now.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In part, yes.

Senator Viola Léger: Perhaps that will answer... If it's a new entity, and 30 percent are Francophones and 70 percent of employees are not bilingual, whereas it's only been in existence for one year... If it had been for 30 years, I would understand, but... In other words, we also learn--and I was pleased to hear that from Ms. Copps during the Semaine de la francophonie--that 75 percent of parents in the country want their children to be bilingual.

When I taught, 80 percent of young people wanted to be bilingual. So, in a new entity, is it so difficult to have 100 percent of people bilingual. I entirely agree with you. It's a change of culture. As you have said in other places, it's not easy. I understand that, but now it's 30 years later. The solutions we're looking for today should be a continuation. In my view, a great deal of progress has been made, but can't we achieve almost 100 percent 30 years later?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I mentioned that 30 percent of the Department's employees are Francophones. Undoubtedly more than 30 percent are bilingual. That's another piece of information I want to give you.

Furthermore, this entity which we created a year ago means that we have adopted resources. The implementation or development of action plans as they are currently conceived requires significant resources at the Department. I won't go into the details on how the process develops, but you have to move an apparatus that is used to operating in a specific way. It's not that it didn't previously know about minority official language communities. In the various sectors of the Department, as in the case of statutory instruments, the instruments are nevertheless co-drafted in English and in French. They are not translated and this has been the case since the late 1970s. This is serious organizational culture. What is done in this field is used as a model around the world.

There are significant achievements that must be relied upon. The achievements of [Editor's Note: Inaudible] have been in existence for 20 years. We have developed a French common law vocabulary, and the common law is a British system which had never previously been expressed in French. Today, there are two law faculties in the country using that vocabulary and the tools to teach it to train lawyers in French in a system in which no one had ever thought it would be possible to plead or teach in French.

The Department of Justice and the federal government have made a major contribution to these fields. It must not be thought that nothing has been done in 30 years and that, in these action plans, we have discovered the miracle cure. We have worked. We have done our work. We have put structures in place, fragile ones I'll willingly admit, but which are now successfully training lawyers today. I would say that, 20 years later, we have now produced the first generation of jurists who will soon be able to rise to the bench. This entire generation of lawyers, jurists, teachers and students, who will find themselves in law offices pleading and defending in French, was not built overnight.

Senator Viola Léger: Thank you for emphasizing that. It's true what you say. I live in Moncton, and when the new generation arrives... It takes generations to do what you've done.

Ms. Doire, I very much like the idea of the target groups you spoke of. I understood that there were 10 persons per region. Could you continue and increase that to 20, 30 and 100, and continue? I'm quite upset to see that the public is so set against politics. They hate politicians; it's as simple as that. It's true that they don't know how complicated the system is. So I'm quite content that you have target groups, but you should continue. Perhaps the new generation will be able to do that.

Average citizens will have contraventions. They would like to be served in their language. It seems to me progress has been made in the past 30 years. That much is certain. It's a complex task to understand how much.

Continue your good work. Thank you very much.

º (1630)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Before going on to the second round and to Mr. Sauvageau, I wanted to know whether Ms. Duchesne could clarify something.

I thought I understood that you have a lawyer to help the jurists. I don't know what to call him. Is it the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario? What about the other provinces?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: The reason is quite simple. The Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario asked us to lend a hand last year, and we agreed to call upon our lawyers at the Department to ask them whether they would be interested in acquiring experience in a legal community environment.

As you are aware, the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario is the largest in terms of the number of jurists. They have more than 500 members. It's also one of the oldest. The Department readily responded to the AJEFO's request. The lawyer has been seconded for two years.That term was established together with AJEFO.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Is it possible that the Department might decide to do the same thing for each province?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: If the request is...

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Perhaps half...

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: If they ask us. The Department will not interfere in the internal affairs of lawyers associations and not all the lawyers associations have a structure where there is a full-time director general.

In some cases, they don't have enough members; in others, they have chosen to share the position with other community organizations.

So if other associations made a request similar to that or another kind of request, we would definitely consider it more than favourably.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Duchesne.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have a lot of questions. Let's say we have a lot of time in front of us and I ask you... To understand each other well in a big group, you have to know the big group and know your place in it.

I'm not asking you, so don't do it, but if I asked you whether you could tell me who is responsible for what in the Official Languages Act on the table at the back, would you be able to tell me? I wouldn't be able to do it.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Who is responsible for what?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Who is responsible for what in the Official Languages Act? A while ago, someone told you about a [Editor's Note: Inaudible], and you said that it was in our committee, that it was the other committee within the Department of Justice, but we're going to meet Ms. Robillard, who is going to tell us that it's not her, that it's the section responsible for the Official Languages Act at Transport Canada. But section 41 states that it's the Department of Heritage that does the coordination for Part VII, but the Prime Minister has told us that it was Mr. Dion.

The average citizen sometimes feels confused, but I've been a member of the committee for nearly a year and, as Yvon said a little earlier, either I'm stupid or I still feel confused.

If I asked you to put it on the board, would you be able to find an organization chart that states who does what in the Official Languages Act?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Look, what we can do, without using the board, is tell you that Mr. Dion's role as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is a role of coordinating the departments that have a specific responsibility under the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: With all due respect, I'm going to interrupt you. However, you've met him once in one year and that's his role. That's what you told us. I'm going to ask my other questions.

You say we're on the right track, that the appointments are positive. Before being here, I was at the Department of International Trade, and the real Y2K problem occurred there because all the officials I travelled with told me that everyone would be bilingual in 2000. But that was put off. So I think that's like you: it was put off, put off and put off, and they still aren't bilingual.

In your action plans for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, there are three columns. The last column shows what has been done. When you submit your action plan, I'm convinced you want the officials who receive it to find it credible and to apply it. We understand each other so far. I haven't had the time to read it all, but I'm going to read an excerpt from page 8. Halfway down page 8 of the 1999-2000 action plan, it states: “Draw up an inventory of tools available in the Department of Justice and prepare a list of schools and institutions that provide language training.”

That's concrete, simple and clear. At the end of the year, it says: “A list of institutions providing language training... has been prepared” and “A list of such establishments is being prepared for the regions.” That's fairly concrete.

In 2000-2001, it states: “Draw up an inventory of tools available in the Department of Justice and prepare a list of schools and institutions that provide language training.”

It's the same thing, word for word, but, in addition, you're lucky: a list is being prepared. Did it take you two years to prepare the same list?

Further down in the same paragraph, it states: “Do a study of the history of the financial resources dedicated to official languages training, in order to propose a reasonable level of resources for language training.” And in 2000-2001, you aimed to do the same thing, but, surprisingly, you achieved the same result. A historical study was done in 1999-2000, and a historical study was done in 2000-2001.

Was it the same study? It's a bit surprising--I'm weighing my words--and hard to understand. Why do some people who receive it not pay all the attention you would like them to give it, if you just cut and paste?

I'd be afraid that, with the creation of your department, you might change software and that, instead of cutting and pasting, you might hit “synonym” and wind up with the same thing.

º (1635)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: As I said, it's a three-year action plan. So it's entirely possible that...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but if I do something in 1999-2000 and I write that I did it, I can't rewrite it and do it again the next year.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I agree with you.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. We understand each other so far.

It seems to me that I had another one. In 2000-2001, on page... I didn't have the time to read it: we received it this afternoon. If I read it, I might be able to find others. At the top, it states: “Coordinate the development and presentation of the departmental action plan for the implementation of section 41...

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Excuse me, what page are you on?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: At the very top of page 20 of the 2000-2001 action plan.

You coordinate the development of section 41 for the Department of Justice. Stéphane Dion coordinates the Official Languages Act, and the Minister coordinates section 41 and Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Who coordinates you?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: That's a good question, I think I can answer it.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I think we're in trouble.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: We coordinate this commitment by the federal government internally, within the Department, in the same way as the other 28 departments and agencies do internally for their own needs.

So I know that coordination is a fashionable term, but Mr. Dion nevertheless coordinates the actions of the departments directly affected by the Official Languages Act, those that have a specific role under the Act, that is the Treasury Board, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Justice. He coordinates those three departments, but he is not involved in the internal management of section 41 within the departments themselves.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You're eventually going to tell us, for example, whether the historical study on financial resources is the same.

º (1640)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Yes, but I'll also tell you that it's probably a study that is going to be done.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It's been done. Look, it's written that the study was done in 1999-2000. The same thing is written for 2000-2001. It's the same sentence, with the same words.

If you want to be up to date, instead of talking about coordination or action plans, talk about a new architecture. That's being up to date in the new action plans and that will be cute. It's a bit boring to present us and present your officials... Ultimately, it's the minister who's accountable. It's not you two; he's the one who's accountable for this because he allowed it to pass. But it's cutting and pasting, and it's boring.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I was interested to listen to that, and I just understood. Mr. Dion is the minister delegated from Heritage Canada. The act, section 43, is clear.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We have just had Easter. It's a mystery. It's something we can't understand, but we have to believe in it.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a few specific questions. When will the study or survey on the Inventory be complete?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: We expect the final report in the spring. So it will probably be in June 2002.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Does the spring go right up to the summer, to June 30?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Yes, the spring theoretically goes until June 30. That's why...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: When will the Department of Justice make that survey or study public so that people can react to it?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In the summer of 2002.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: During the summer.

Is the firm that was hired an outside firm?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Yes, it's PGF Consultants Inc.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I don't know it.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: They employ...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In their mandate, did you ask them to consider the higher courts, the Supreme Court, the Federal Court, which, if I correctly understood, are excluded from your study?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Yes, the courts...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Did you ask them that?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: No, the Supreme Court and Federal Court are not included in the study.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to come back to my question of a moment ago because I didn't understand everything. Perhaps I did not express myself properly; that happens to me too.

The Criminal Code provides that a form, contravention and information must be bilingual. The police officer completes the information, does so in his mother tongue. That's quite clear. The citizen who receives the information in a language other than his own... Do you understand my point of view? All I'm asking you is why that was not changed? Why has your department not moved on that for at least three years, to clarify the Act, to clarify the question? An informer must use the language indicated in the contravention.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I can't give you the specific reason today; that goes without saying. In any case, I believe that amendments would be necessary to do so and that that obviously requires negotiations at other levels, as you know.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Perfect. That's a very good answer. We need an amendment to the Criminal Code and I agree with you on that.

Second, earlier you addressed a subject that intrigued me because I have my opinions on it as well. I'm talking about the Divorce Act and the Bankruptcy Act. We had a witness--I don't know whether it was here or in another Senate committee--but a certain Tory Colvin, who is the President of the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario, who told us that it was virtually impossible to obtain a divorce or file for bankruptcy in French outside Quebec at this time. Why? The Act is supposed to be symmetrical. It applies across the country, but, in fact, there are no judges to hear divorce cases in London, Ontario. So when a person comes before a judge seeking alimony or with a serious reason to dispute his testimony, he is told before the courts that, sorry, there are no judges at that time to hear his case, that it's going to take a month, two months, three months before a judge can be brought in to hear it, but that, if he speaks English, it can be heard the next week. As a result, in Ontario, the government tells us that there are no requests for divorce trials in French. I understand; I'm not divorced yet. I've been married for 46 years, and I don't want to either, but those who want to divorce have a very big problem because there are no judges to hear their cases. I'm not talking about a region like the National Capital, but I'm talking about London, Ontario. That was Mr. Colvin himself who told us that.

The same is true for bankruptcy. In 1975 or 1976, I introduced a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act to be certain that bankruptcies are announced in both official languages. It's still the same as it was in 1975. It's not that I haven't tried.

What are you going to do to amend the Divorce Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act, so that all Canadians are fairly and equally entitled to invoke them as citizens of the country in divorce and bankruptcy cases?

º (1645)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: At the risk of answering you less directly than you would like, I would say that the Inventory, the study whose results we are awaiting, also put very specific questions on this matter to the 359 and some persons who agreed to talk to us and to answer the questions asked.

We will of course willingly share the Inventory results with this committee when we receive them and have analyzed them thoroughly. It is also certain that those are federal statutes, but are also part of the administration of justice, which is also a provincial jurisdiction. Those statutes are ultimately subject to two jurisdictions.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, senator.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I might just have a comment and a thought, Madam Chair. We just finished with Air Canada, for example; we made recommendations about Air Canada. I think it would be quite difficult to intimidate someone like me, but there are people who can be intimidated more easily. I just received a letter from Air Canada in which I was told that, according to a survey, it ranked third in the world, that good work is recognized and that, if I want, I can go see it on the Web site, but only in English. It's a nice letter. I took it more as an insulting letter than as a letter designed to give me information. I intend to write them back and give them my comments on it.

We're talking about the Department of Justice. Imagine the poor devil who gets on to the “highway” as they say in French where I come from, and a police officer arrives and he wants to be served in French and the officer begins to get tough. What kind of language can he have with that or with a judge? That's why I find... It's only a comment, but it's gotten to the point here, in our country, a country where the two official languages are supposed to be recognized, you have to fight with the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is supposed to be there to ensure justice, and we have to fight with the Department of Justice for our language to be recognized. I find that unacceptable. In any case, if your committee was created, we hopefully won't wait another 10, 15 or 20 years to change the culture, because our Senator Léger says it takes generations. I wouldn't want us to wait another generation. It has to be accepted and changes have to be made soon.

I just wanted to make that comment. I apologize, but, with all due respect, I don't believe it's the time to ask questions because I don't think the changes will be made with the target persons here and there; they'll be made in the Department when there is the political will to say that we're doing things and we're changing them.

Thank you.

An hon. member: That's noted.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know whether all the committee members are aware of it, and that's why I want to announce it: Mr. Bellemare's wife has died. The funeral service was held this morning. It was quite touching.

I wish to congratulate our committee because, like Benoît, it's been a year. I enjoyed the announcements I recently heard saying that new Air Canada employees should be bilingual, should speak both languages: English and French. I wondered whether that was due to...

º (1650)

Mr. Yvon Godin: I came from Montreal this morning; some aren't bilingual.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Is that a result of our good work? There's also the announcement of Ms. Jane Stewart's program concerning bilingual employees. I don't recall the amounts, but I know that Senator Gauthier was there and that he was really very satisfied.

There is also the announcement that Mr. Dion was not supposed to make--Sheila was supposed to make it--about $2.5 million granted to the City of Ottawa for parking tickets. In any case, I'm pleased to see progress being made. It's not all black.

I have a question on parking tickets. We were talking about Ontario, and we were supposed to have a one-year deadline. What will happen if it isn't done, if that's not respected? What means do you have?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I believe that the one-year deadline requested was requested by the three parties in the case, the Department of Justice Canada, the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario and the Commissioner of Official Languages. Ontario wasn't ready either, when the deadline expired this year, to put in place a system such as what the court had indicated.

Here's where we stand at present. It's very simple: we are in constant negotiations with Ontario; that goes without saying. Ultimately, based on the needs we communicated to them for the introduction of a system in accordance with the Federal Court decision, Ontario is finally studying the state of its resources. It goes without saying that, for us, negotiations will definitely conclude during the year.

So the one-year deadline was requested to ensure that the Federal Court judgment was complied with. As I said, Ontario was not ready to move forward when the initial deadline expired.

They are currently studying the level of resources necessary in order to have a sufficient number of bilingual justices of the peace to ensure that communications with the public are in compliance with Part IV of the Official Languages Act and so on. The process is very well...

So you don't doubt that it's going to be done.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: We think so. Everything is in place for it.

Mr. Gérard Binet: As I have often said in committee, I work in close cooperation with Mr. Dion. There are a number of departments, and Mr. Dion is there to coordinate. It's really not an easy task, but, as I can see, nice announcements have been made to date. Mr. Dion must coordinate and rally everyone in the same direction. I believe he's doing an excellent job and we will see a good difference in the years to come, as has been the case in the past year. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

I want to come back to the question of the 1999-2002 three year action plan. Previously, there was one for 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 1997-1998. Were any independent analyses conducted of this plan by consultants such as PGF Consultants Inc.?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Not for the Department of Justice. This is the first time the Department has considered this action plan through such an elaborate process as the one we have undertaken.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Were assessments conducted by the Auditor General?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Not as far as I know.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So no critical analyses have been conducted by entities outside the Department.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Some were probably done by the Department of Canadian Heritage, and, as I said, there was the 1996 analysis by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So, if I understood correctly, the study that PGF is now doing will lead to another action plan, if I understand you correctly.

º (1655)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: The PGF study should give us what we haven't had thus far, that is to say quantitative supply and demand figures. We very much need those figures in order to move forward.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So there is another plan being prepared. The 1999-2000 plan is finished.

Ms. Sylvie Doire: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): What is the timetable for preparing that action plan?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: As I said earlier...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I may have missed that because I had to leave for a few minutes.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: No, that's all right.

Ms. Sylvie Doire: There will be a transitional plan for 2000-2004. We will assign our staff to developing the strategic plan, which will culminate in a completely renewed action plan.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Can you tell me whether you are consulting for the purpose of establishing that transitional action plan?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: On the transitional plan?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Who are you consulting?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: We're using data we have recently collected.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But the Act invites you to consult the communities. Can you tell us who you consulted or who you intend to consult?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: Well, we are going to consult them in the course of the strategic planning that will culminate in an action plan. So people will be consulted. The Inventory was a very important consultation, and the few focus groups that have already taken place have given us an idea of the information we need. We will be conducting other consultations.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Would you agree to come and consult the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the Senate and the House of Commons before establishing it, that is to say come and seek our point of view?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: I would like to say yes. I don't know what I can answer.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Who knows?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: I'll find the answer.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): All right. Will you send us an answer in writing?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: Certainly.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Would the transfer to the province of Ontario and from the province to the municipalities with regard to the contraventions question have taken place if the Treasury Board policy on government transformations, which has just been adopted, had been in place at the time?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I would like to answer you with a yes or with a no. At the present time, I can't answer that question with that clear an answer.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are you familiar with the new Treasury Board policy?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Yes. It will be examined very closely.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): When a department, such as the Department of Human Resources, enters into agreements with the provinces or transfers responsibility for manpower, are those agreements, which are legal instruments, carefully vetted at the Department of Justice before being signed?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: As regards manpower agreements, since that's what you're referring to, I entered the Department after those agreements were signed, but I imagine the legal counsel for the client department were called in to consider the matter.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): All those agreements are renewable. There are no eternal agreements. They are for a period of three to five years, and all are bound to be renewed. Will they be carefully vetted under this new policy on government transformations by the Department of Justice when they are supposed to be renewed?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I am completely prepared to send you an answer to that question, but I imagine that's the case.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The Minister was supposed to come here on Monday, but I don't know now whether he'll come or not. If he doesn't come, we may ask the departmental champion to come. We'll see. In one way or another, someone else from the department will come here soon. That's to be hoped. We could perhaps expect to have answers to those questions at the time of the presentation. Thank you.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Perfect.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Madam Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Hello.

I'm curious. You come here to talk to us about a new entity or a new agency that was established a few months ago. How was that agency formed? Under whose influence was it formed? The Minister of Justice? The Commissioner of Official Languages? The new official languages coordinator? Who suddenly had the idea to take this matter in hand and say we're moving ahead?

» (1700)

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: It's quite simple. The matter had already been taken in hand by an existing entity, but which had a more limited mandate with regard to the development of the action plan. For administrative reasons, one year ago, coordination of the Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice was regrouped under this entity which is now called Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism so that action could be much more concerted. This has enabled us to group within a single entity the expertise already existing within the Department and which was added to that previously existing in the former entity, which it enriched.

When the present action plan expired on March 31, 2002, we ultimately decided, under Heritage Canada's guidelines on evaluation frameworks, to completely review the approach we had previously taken and to develop genuine tools for managing Part VII as regards the activities of the Department of Justice, and thus a results-based action.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: That's quite a task you were given. I wish you good luck, and I thank you very much.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Thank you. You're very kind.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Could I know the difference between the Committee on Bilingualism and Bijuralism and Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism? When this thing changed, how many people were added or taken away? Did you move? Did you get more money?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: First, I should tell you that the Committee on Bilingualism and Bijuralism was a departmental committee that had no specific administrative basis. In other words, the position of secretary or chair of the committee was that of Mr. Mario Dion, who is now our official languages champion. The purpose of the committee was to bring together the representatives of the Department's major sectors to make them aware of the official languages issue in their specific operations.

When the Department of Justice conducted a review of departmental security nearly a year ago, that committee, by a common accord, disappeared. It had become a very large committee which found it somewhat difficult to cope with more concrete situations. The entity we represent today has taken over that committee's responsibility. The committee no longer exists.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It may be somewhat paradoxical to talk about Francophonie and Justice in Official Languages since Francophonie is part of official languages, but that's an internal management matter.

There was a five-year plan which recently expired, in 2001.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: A three-year action plan, from 1999 to 2002.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But there was another one. In the 1998-1999 action plan, mention was made of a five-year action plan.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Of the Committee on Bilingualism and Bijuralism.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I suppose that, for each year, there were three columns in which there were outputs. If you add up the outputs achieved--I don't want you to criticize those who were there before, when you were not there--can we say that the five-year plan was a success, a modest success or a failure, or do you prefer not to answer that question?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: That's quite a choice.

No, not necessarily. The committee's five-year plan was obviously quite ambitious, if my memory is correct. One of the elements of that plan was to ensure that the Department's action plan was developed with resources and a structure that would enable it to have a certain degree of continuity. In that respect, the committee's action was successful.

In other respects, which are those of integrating the very spirit of Part VII of the Official Languages Act into the Department's activities, the committee did not exist for the five years provided for in its five-year plan for the purpose of fully carrying out its action plan.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I understand your answer completely, and I thank you.

Now, one senses that there is no overriding enthusiasm within the federal government for implementing the Official Languages Act. In December, we will have Statistics Canada's report on the situation of Francophones in Canada as a whole. If we exclude Quebec, some 4.5 percent of Francophones live outside Quebec, with all due deference to my friend, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier.

When you have the statistics in December, is it possible we will have a problem within an entire province, British Columbia, for example, where numbers will not warrant and where people will call into question the part of the Official Languages Act on justice because, they will say, numbers no longer warrant? Is that imaginable?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I would say that, in the field of justice, language rights are most apparent in criminal law. Sections 530 and following of the Criminal Code contain very specific provisions. In that instance, it's not a matter of numbers. It's the law. So in this very specific context of the Criminal Code, it's a statutory provision.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

I would like to clarify one point. The two reports were not handed to me when I arrived at the committee meeting. I had received them at the office and I read them. When I say I received them today, it was not at 2:55 p.m.

» (1705)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I find that interesting. The National Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice has been in existence for at least 20 years.

Today, when I was preparing to come to the meeting, I tried to access the Justice Canada Web site. Have you every tried that? Try it and see.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: The Department's site?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's very difficult to access the National Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice. It's impossible. I can prove it to you. I have the document here. Nowhere is it stated that Francophones can access the program. You have to call the Department of Justice to find out the Web address. Not all Canadians will do that. I did it. It's a document entitled Welcome to a unique site relating to access to justice in both official languages in Canada. I understand: you can't access it.

So I'll give you a first piece of advice. So tell whoever it may concern that access to Internet service is essential today and that the fundamental principle of the active offer of service in the official language of the client's choice must be respected. It's a good principle.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Allow me to say that the POLAJ site is an independent site.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you very much.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, has the Canadian Alliance resigned from the committee?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): No. They're not here today, but we don't know why they're absent.

Ms. Duchesne, I believe you hadn't finished answering Senator Gauthier.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: I simply wanted to add that the POLAJ site is an independent site separate from the Department of Justice site at the specific request of the member organizations of the National Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice. That does not prevent the Department from establishing a hypertext link to the site, but, in theory, it's a site for which the Department of Justice provides resources but which actually belongs to the POLAJ network of organizations.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): All right. Is there anything else, Senator Gauthier?

» (1710)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...POLAJ is not.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Bélanger.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would like to ask a completely different question from those asked thus far. I don't know whether you're going to be able to answer it. Can you tell me what kind of preparation officials such as you receive before appearing before a committee such as ours?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: What kind of preparation?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you visit people in the Department? Do you have briefings? Do you have meetings with other departments, with the Privy Council and so on?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In particular, I'll say that I don't think there is any formal and orchestrated preparation or preparation process. Moreover, the content of our presentation is decided on the basis of comments of a number of our colleagues who work on specific issues. The text of the presentation is then submitted to certain colleagues, approved and commented on by our line superiors. In this case, there was no consultation with other departments.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): What kind of leeway is usually given to people who come to appear? We have asked you a number of questions to which you did not seem to have any latitude to answer.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In this particular case, our leeway was in a way limited to what we do. So the official languages programs of the Department of Justice are those we listed in our presentation.

There is another group at the department, which is the Official Languages Law Group, which acts as legal counsel to the Department and government in matters pertaining to the Official Languages Act.

A number of questions which you addressed with us are more the responsibility of that group or specialized groups relating to specific issues. On contraventions and judicial appointments, for example, there are sections in the Department devoted solely to those questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So we can understand that you can have a fairly limited attitude. I respect that.

The person responsible for official languages issues for the Department is Mr. Mario Dion. In view of his particular duties and responsibilities, does he have access to all those other programs? Yes? So he would be able to answer our questions.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: Very likely.

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

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I would like to ask Ms. Doire one final question. You answered on the extension of your action plan. If I correctly understood, it terminates in 2002, and you will have two years to file another action plan. Is that correct?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: That is indeed what I said, Ms. Maheu. In the presentation document we submitted to you, there's a list of the stages entailed in that process. It will no doubt give you an idea of the reason why the process is so long.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): In this case, may we conclude that there will be no further actions...?

Ms. Sylvie Doire: No, not at all. I want to reassure you on that point. We have not stopped all activity. It's a parallel process. For the moment, rather than develop an action plan for the next two years, we have chosen a process with greater scope because we believe that, in this way, we will wind up with a more useful, more realistic, more effective and more results-based product. So that's the approach we have chosen, but it requires more consultation and coordination. Instead of trying to prepare a very short-term action plan, we chose to ask our staff to develop a strategic plan that will lead to an action plan. However, the current action plan still stands and continues to be applied, and follow-up action is still being taken.

Ms. Maheu, would you allow my colleague to add a brief reply? I believe she had something to add about preparation.

» (1715)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Absolutely.

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: In response to Mr. Bélanger's question, I wanted to add that we consulted our colleagues in the other areas to which you referred today. The answers we gave in those specific contexts are those that our colleagues gave us. They represent the Department's position on those issues.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I want to thank you. If there are no other questions from the House of Commons...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would like to say something, with your permission. We have circulated a proposal for a report on the consultation with the communities. If you could look at it this evening or tomorrow, we could, if it's not too much to ask of you, adopt it tomorrow afternoon, at the next meeting.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: May I ask a very brief question?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I just wanted to ensure that everyone knows what I'm talking about.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...suggestions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would like to suggest to you that we take a half an hour for that tomorrow after Ms. Robillard's appearance. If we need more time, we will come back to it, but, if we wanted to adopt it or amend it accordingly in order to send it to Minister Dion, I believe that would be appropriate.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You're talking about your action plan. Are we to make or can we make a connection between the action plan you are developing and the action plan that will be tabled by Mr. Dion concerning the implementation of the Official Languages Act?

Ms. Andrée Duchesne: We're talking about two separate things. Our action plan is already being developed. I believe that Mr. Dion's will appear later this year.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you very much for your presentation, and I wish you good luck.

The meeting is adjourned.