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.
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 23, 2002
| ¹ | 1535 |
 |
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.)) |
|
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)) |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages) |
| ¹ | 1540 |
| ¹ | 1545 |
| ¹ | 1550 |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East , Canadian Alliance) |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
| ¹ | 1555 |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
A voice |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, (Ontario, Lib.) |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
| º | 1600 |
|
The Joint Chair |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
| º | 1605 |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| º | 1610 |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
| º | 1615 |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
| º | 1620 |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Michel Robichaud (Director General, Investigations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages) |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
Mr. Michel Robichaud |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC) |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Senator Gérald Beaudoin |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
| º | 1625 |
|
Senator Gérald Beaudoin |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Senator Gérald Beaudoin |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Senator Raymond Setlakwe (Les Laurentides, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
| º | 1630 |
|
Senator Raymond Setlakwe |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.) |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
| º | 1635 |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
| º | 1640 |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| º | 1645 |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
| º | 1650 |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Peter Goldring |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
| º | 1655 |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
| » | 1700 |
|
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier |
|
Ms. Dyane Adam |
|
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) |
CANADA
Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, April 23, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1535)
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.)): Today we will be hearing the Commissioner of Official Languages for consideration of the estimates for 2002-2003. Before we begin, I would like to give the floor to the joint chair, who has an announcement to make.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): Unfortunately, at a quarter past five the Senate bells will start ringing and we will have to leave for a vote. If I am not mistaken, the House of Commons will also be voting.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The bells will start at five fifteen, so the meeting will most likely finish, at the latest, at a quarter past five.
Madam Commissioner, you have the floor.
Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Members of the committee, thank you once again for giving me the opportunity to talk to you about the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Consideration of the estimates is a tradition I consider worthwhile; this exercise allows me to take stock of our activities, to reflect and to ensure that our dialogue is ongoing.
First of all, I want to thank you, as I did yesterday, for your commitment, and I want to highlight the important work you have accomplished in recent months. Your reports on the broadcasting of the debates of the House of Commons in both official languages by CPAC and, of course, on the language situation at Air Canada, as well as your consultations with target groups, should further the progress of the official languages program, and the progress of these two issues in particular. Everything your committee does is an indication of your desire to advance linguistic duality in our evolving society—one that, we hope, is a good example internationally.
Ensuring full recognition of linguistic duality and especially, as Senator Beaudoin so eloquently stated yesterday, the equality of the status of English and French in Canadian society, is a significant challenge. Meeting this challenge means that we must work with the great many stakeholders. Changes in society, many of them caused by changes in technology, are altering established practices; this paradigm is particularly applicable to the workings of government. Greater pressures are being brought to bear on what we have come to call cyber governments. In our knowledge-based era, change is fast paced and demands that we continuously learn new things. We need to know how to manage information, adapt to change, anticipate needs, and spot new trends.
That is the context in which the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, like many other federal institutions, must operate.
[English]
I realize that integrating the official language program calls for firm, sustained commitment in government operations at all levels. I also acknowledge the significant efforts that have been made horizontally since the publication of my first annual report. I shall try to outline the current situation for you in a brief presentation.
Over the past decade, government operations have been overhauled and supported by complex agreements. Given this new context, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages must move quickly and acquire the knowledge it needs to influence all these new organizations as early as possible, bearing in mind that they operate differently from federal departments and crown corporations.
I also note that some programs have been entrusted to outside parties, a practice that requires us to set up effective networks and pay ongoing attention to changes in the way the government works. Like the Auditor General of Canada, I believe we must introduce standard governance frameworks specifically for official languages that will ensure accountability to Parliament.
[Translation]
Preserving language rights is urgent, and to do it we need the right tools. In a structured and consistent manner, my office must assess the repercussions of draft legislation, programs and policies in all fields, such as the administration of justice in both official languages, Government On-line, immigration, modernization of human resources management, air transportation, health and education, to name just a few examples.
To this end we must expand our research capacity. We need to create a section of auditors responsible for conducting horizontal investigations and producing special studies. For example, as I explained yesterday, we intervened very early during the legislative process of renewing the Immigration Act, and the legislative committee responsible for considering that bill took our proposed amendments into account. The study on immigration I recently published also highlighted the importance of this issue. As well, we intervened during consideration of the bill setting out the language obligations of Air Canada subsidiaries.
Thus, still on the subject of active vigilance, in February 2002, I appeared before the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to support Senator Gauthier's initiative, Bill S-32, the purpose of which is to clarify the scope of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
I would also like to take this opportunity to tell the members of the committee that I support any amendment that would clarify Part VII and remove any ambiguity about the federal government's obligations as to the full implementation of the two objectives of Part VII.
I also addressed the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in order to ensure that all components of the broadcasting system adequately reflect linguistic duality.
¹ (1540)
[English]
So where human rights, especially language rights, are concerned, our dialogue was greatly enriched at the recent celebrations marking the twentieth anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Constitutional experts are unanimous that the decisions in Beaulac and Arsenault-Cameron have given meaning to these language rights by clarifying and specifying government's obligations.
Over the past few months I have intervened in four cases on various issues and at different levels of the judicial system. Increasingly, my office, the legal services directorate, is called upon to provide legal opinion, not only as part of complex investigations but also on the increasing number of questions before the courts related to the status of English and French in Canadian society.
My consultations with senior federal officials confirm a need to diversify our approach to federal institutions. It became clear to me that providing diagnosis is not enough. We also need to share our positive experiences and ensure that the measures we propose provide effective remedies to shortcomings and produce sustainable results. Therefore, I have set up within my office an equality and liaison division that is responsible for initiating dialogue outside the investigations process. My staff must now not only identify the need for change within institutions but also work to help facilitate that change.
[Translation]
We have also defined performance indicators, aimed at improving the work method used by our investigators to identify the source of the problems and the best ways to eliminate them. By means of this improved method, we want to use complaints as tools for change and apply techniques that will allow the decision-makers and employees to do a better a job of taking charge and assuming responsibility. Our investigators are trained to use a range of methods, but not to accept compromises where language rights and obligations are at stake.
A round table discussion group at the Canadian Centre for Management Development will soon provide me with an opportunity to deliver the messages contained in our study entitled Time for a Change in Culture. As well, the CCMD is soon to present the results of a special study, on the language of work in the public service and particularly executives' responsibility.
This year, I have made many presentations to the management committees or executive committees of federal institutions. In them, I have emphasized the need for a stronger language audit function, and for effective performance indicators for assessing implementation of Part VII of the act. I have also indicated how important complaints are as early indicators of systemic problems. These meetings have been an opportunity for me to tell people about the diversity of our services and methods, as well as to learn more about the specific context within which each institution operates.
Along the same lines, I agreed to chair the new Canadian Ombudsman Forum, and to be joint chair of the board of directors of the Association des ombudsmans et médiateurs de la Francophonie. While giving me an opportunity to promote the office and especially the role of ombudsman within a democratic regime, these are valuable forums for discussion and they provide me with much food for thought.
[English]
Obviously, progress towards genuine equality of status, French and English, depends on the full development of our official languages communities, and ultimately on a deep understanding by the government and its provincial partners of their respective complementary obligation in the field.
We hope the action plan soon to be tabled by the Hon. Mr. Dion on behalf of the government will give concrete expression to its renewed commitment. In this regard, having intervened on several occasions on the issue of bilingualism in Ottawa, I am delighted to see the federal government has provided $2.5 million in funding.
As far as promoting the official languages program with the general public is concerned, I have expanded the number of meetings I have held in all parts of Canada, and I continue to talk regularly with representatives of the minority and majority communities. We have published a book on the first 30 years of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and we have updated a range of publications.
As part of the national and regional fairs and exhibitions, employees of the office have staffed booths at a number of events. We have made an effort to inform the public as much as possible about official languages, their rights, through our ever-increasing presence in the media. I also intervene regularly in the press across the country through letters to the editor to correct any false perceptions about the official languages program.
¹ (1545)
[Translation]
This brief presentation gives you an idea of the increasing number of interventions we shall undertake. In fact, since language is an integral part of nearly every activity in Canadian society, it is hardly surprising that other parliamentary committees, in addition to your own, want to take advantage of my office's expertise. As a result, the office needs additional resources if it is to be able to assist Parliament and the government in fulfilling their commitment to the full recognition of English and French.
In recent months, highly significant issues have been debated on Parliament Hill. We must pursue our efforts to reconcile commitments under the Charter and those under Part VII of the act, and to address the other important and challenging issues that call for effective follow-up mechanisms in assessing the extent of implementation of our shared recommendations.
[English]
I consider it my duty to provide greater support for the work of Parliament so the legislation it passes further progresses towards genuine equality of English and French. If we are to give parliamentarians the support they need, the time has come to offer them an effective parliamentary liaison service.
In conclusion, to ensure Canadians' language rights are truly recognized and respected, an extensive series of measures must be taken. In order to do the job well, I must be even more actively present with majority and minority groups, institutions, the media, the public, government, provincial legislators, and Parliament.
Last year, in its fourth report, your committee asked the government to increase funding for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Permanent identified needs were in the order of $6 million. It's how we assess our needs with respect to the different objectives I presented to you.
The office received authorization last year to increase its budget by $2.4 million on a permanent basis, following an initial submission to the Treasury Board. As well, a temporary amount, allocated over three years, was also approved to allow us to renew our technological platform in anticipation of government online.
[Translation]
In order to complete our strategic turnaround, we are putting the final touches on a second submission requesting additional resources. We need to focus our efforts on three clearly-defined tasks.
The first is to develop our knowledge of the constantly changing situation, by gathering relevant data, conducting research, and producing reports on the language situation in institutions.
The second task is to encourage the adoption by federal institutions of an integrated strategic approach to include official languages as part of their day-to-day management methods, programs and services.
And the third task is to exercise persuasion, so as to influence stakeholders positively and encourage them to implement the provisions of the act.
Additional resources, then, are vital if we are to improve parliamentary relations, provide liaison with the communities, conduct research and analysis in the social and legal fields, and set up an auditing function. We are confident that this second submission will be favourably received this year.
In closing, I would simply like to thank you for your consistent support. In the many-facetted follow-up that the Air Canada case and Minister Dion's action plan will require (to name only those two interventions), you may rely on my full cooperation.
Thank you, I will now be pleased to answer your questions.
¹ (1550)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Ms. Adam.
Mr. Goldring, sept minutes.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East , Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your presentation, Madam Commissioner.
Madam Commissioner, I have a quick question, from the outset, dealing with the forecast spending.
How much of the entire spending is dedicated in percentages in dealing with the legal concerns of Canadians, the investigations, and legal concerns you are personally intervening on? Would you have an approximate percentage of the overall forecast spending?
Ms. Dyane Adam: If we look at the budget, if we show the cost of our legal services, it would be in our report under the different business lines. It's included in “Complaints and Investigations”.
About $4 million of the $11 million is salaries. Let's say around $4 million, but this includes all the investigations. If we talk about FTEs, it's about five persons out of about 130 full-time employees.
I cannot give you exactly how much we spend on legal services. It's included in “Complaints and Investigations”. As you know, the bulk of the activities in our budget is spent largely on investigations.
Mr. Peter Goldring: It is actually forked out of the total budget.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Not for legal services, for investigations.
To give you a sense of the real cost, in the legal services branch there are about five persons full time. In salaries, overall, we're talking about $420,000 on legal services.
Mr. Peter Goldring: In point D on page 2 of the report, it mentioned particularly “Devolution of federal powers to other levels of government”. It seemed to be raising an awareness that over the past decade it has not ensured the protection of language rights of official language minority communities.
In fact, it is suggested that any agreement on a transfer of powers from the federal government to a province or territorial government must include provisions that protect the language rights of the minority community, unequivocally.
This seems to be a recognition that there are some deficiencies and some noticeable concerns on transferring federal powers to the provinces. Could you be specific on what that is relative to?
¹ (1555)
Ms. Dyane Adam: I can give you a few examples. I think one of the publications that really deals with this issue is the one that was published by my predecessor. It's called the Government Transformation: The Impact on Canada’s Official Languages Program.
In that special study, a number of cases are explained. One of them is the transfer of manpower training from the federal level to the provinces. In the transferring of the responsibility of the province for manpower training, we have found that the rights of the official language minority were not protected in many of those transfers, with the consequence that services were not provided and not all citizens of both official language groups--and I'm talking about the minority, obviously--could benefit from this program.
Mr. Peter Goldring: That's a specific concern that has been raised. Paragraph H is of concern to me. Under paragraph H on page 3, it states:
| According to popular wisdom, the anglophone community in Quebec needs no special protection, because it is part of the national majority. |
Is that an interpretation that these concerns of federal power devolution to the provinces would be mainly of concern for francophone rather than anglophone? My understanding in the province of Quebec is that there are considerable--
A voice: Which document?
Mr. Peter Goldring: I was given this for today's preparation.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It's not quite...but go ahead, so we know at least what you're talking about.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Can you show the document to Madame Adam?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will tell her. This is the report that has been tabled in the Senate and in the House of Commons last week. It's basically a compendium of what the various associations that appeared before us told us. The report is essentially from Mr. Dion.
Ms. Dyane Adam: We don't have it.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So you don't have that document, and it doesn't originate from the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm relating my question to it because this follows through with the concern for devolution of powers and--
[Translation]
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...he never comes.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Go ahead.
Mr. Peter Goldring: It concerns the devolution of powers and then the comment in the report that according to popular wisdom.... That would suggest that some decision has been made that the anglophone communities' concerns are unfounded as a minority language. Could you respond to that?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You may, if you so choose, not respond to that. It is not your document. You did not originate it. It is essentially out of order.
If you wish to respond, go ahead.
Ms. Dyane Adam: I will not respond, obviously, to the document. I have no idea what is in the document, sir.
But as Commissioner of Official Languages, I can state my position regarding the official language minorities, whether French or English. We consider erosion of linguistic rights of minorities, whether French or English, as a source of great concern to us. So we examine and accept and receive complaints from either group and we investigate them.
I think, with respect to our office, we show as much--
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Last question.
Mr. Peter Goldring: This would lead to my final question. That being the case, and it being given fair consideration.... Whether it's French linguistic minority or English minority concerns, they're both being treated equally.
There have been some concerns raised in Montreal by specific groups about Bill 99. They're seeking some type of intermediary assistance in order to be able to address their concerns there, whether it be through your organization or whether they be given court challenge assistance to take their concerns to the courts. Are you familiar with those concerns? Have they been addressed through your office or specific applications to your office? Have there been any financial allowances for this consideration?
Ms. Dyane Adam: I don't know, but what I can tell you is that we have intervened recently in a court challenge on behalf.... It was in a municipality in Montreal and there was a question raised by the court. The commissioner felt that a change in legislation would have the impact of eroding existing rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. I can tell you about one case where we intervened, just less than a year ago.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much.
º (1600)
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chairman.
Welcome, once again. I found your presentation interesting, even educational at some points. I apologize, I have only four minutes. I could ask you questions for an hour and a half or two hours, but in any case...
I would like to talk about item B in your estimates: “Support community development and promote the equality of English and French...”. There's a list of 13 points, each of which could form the basis of a speech, I am sure.
I would like to know, Madam Commissioner, which of these 13 points you consider the most important, to which would you give priority. Point three reads as follows, for example:
| offer the official language minority communities the legal assistance they need to claim their linguistic rights guaranteed under sections 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. |
Can you tell me whether you have funds available to help the communities take their cases under sections 16 to 20 to court? Do any of your four or five lawyers provide assistance to the communities?
What is meant by the expression: “offer the communities the legal assistance they need...”?
Ms. Dyane Adam: We do not provide direct legal assistance to the communities. Of course, they can make special requests under the Court Challenges Program, but the Commissioner's Office offers support to communities in that any case that goes to court and that could have an impact on the status of French and English in Canadian society is evaluated by my office, which decides whether or not to intervene, to put forward its expertise, to ensure that our research and our knowledge about the issue in question can enlighten the judge or judges, and promote the full recognition of French and English in Canada.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Last year, you went to court several times. I am thinking of the Montfort case particularly, of Charlebois, in the east, and other examples that I could mention. How do you choose the cases that will be given priority for intervention by your legal counsel?
Ms. Dyane Adam: Now you are getting into what I would call the nitty-gritty of the office. We really analyze each case individually. We consider whether there will be any value added, whether our intervention will result in something extra. That is the basis for our decision. There is also the issue... Sometimes we decide to wait a year. Sometimes we do not intervene at the trial level or at the next two appeal levels. Sometimes we decide to let the situation develop for a while. There are all sorts of considerations, but...
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the issue of municipal mergers in Montreal, is your current budget for legal interventions adequate to meet the demand?
Ms. Dyane Adam: No, it is not. Moreover, this is a planning problem, because we are not the ones who decide to take a case to court.
We are told that at the moment, there are about 10 cases that will be coming forward in New Brunswick. These are cases that will go to the courts or have already been taken to court on the issue of the status of French and English in this province. These cases could have consequences in other provinces. Such cases involve a tremendous mobilization of our resources.
º (1605)
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could you send me a list of the legal challenges in Canada to date under sections 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? There are a number of them.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I'm thinking of Charlebois, but also of the hospital in Moncton.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Dumont Hospital.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: There are a huge number. I am often told that if we were to broaden the scope of section 41 to make it binding, there would be an incredible demand. May I point out that there have been more than 300 cases on section 15 of the Constitution, on equality rights? There have been barely 20 on section 16, and about 30 on section 23. So no one can claim that we have had too many such cases. That is not true. We could not afford them. By the way, can the Commissioner of Official Languages take legal action under section 41? That is not in the act. There is no recourse to the Commissioner's Office when someone feels that the government has erred by omission or otherwise.
I would like to come back to another important matter that you raised in your presentation, namely restructuring. Last week, Ms. Robillard came and told us that under the current restructuring process, it may become necessary to change the way we provide language training. She told me that there was a review of human resources management in government and that the whole issue of language training was being reconsidered. She said that the Public Service Commission may no longer be the body to provide language training.
Are you involved in this review or restructuring process?
Ms. Dyane Adam: I imagine she was referring to the initiative to modernize the public service and its human resources. Is that correct?
Our involvement in this issue has been more to offer our suggestions on training, testing, language requirements and recruitment. We highlighted the importance of dealing with language training sooner, rather than later in a public servant's career. Of course, we also spoke about the language of work, an area in which we feel there are problems.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You will come back on the second round, Senator.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have seven minutes, but I will not take up much time.
I have been looking for someone like Mr. Goldring, from Edmonton, for a long time. I can understand his concern about the fate of anglophones in Montreal, Quebec. If we were involved in a telethon, I would challenge my friend and colleague, but I do invite him to come and spend two or three days in Montreal with me. In exchange, I would like to go and spend two or three days in Edmonton. Then we would compare the rights and services available to the anglophone community in Montreal to the rights and services available to the francophone community in Edmonton. If Mr. Goldring turns down my invitation, I will be a little sad, but...
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I do let some things go, but I must call you to order here.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would go to Edmonton too. I would be disappointed if my offer were turned down.
Good afternoon, Madam Commissioner, and thank you for appearing before us.
I would like to ask the traditional question we ask at estimates time. Do you have enough money? If not, how much would you like? But I will be a little more specific.
You mentioned twice in your report that you did not have enough staff to carry out all your projects. However, there are still 145 full-time employees in your budget until 2005. Are we to understand, that with the budget you have, it will be impossible to increase your staff? Consequently, you need more money.
Unless I am mistaken, your budget has remained virtually unchanged since 1993, after being reduced. However, in current dollars or constant dollars—I am not an economist—if the budget is the same and your costs are higher, that means you have less money. Do we agree on that? I would like to hear your views on this. Please tell me whether we are talking about current dollars or constant dollars. I do not know.
Section 58 of the Official Languages Act talks about the complaints that individuals, groups and organizations can make. Do you have enough money in your budgets to inform francophone communities about their right to make complaints? Do you have the funds required to promote the Official Languages Act with minority francophone and anglophone communities so that they can be aware of the act, their rights and the complaint process?
Let us assume that you want to have a campaign on television, radio and in the print media that would cost $2 million, and you do not have enough money to do that. Do you think Heritage Canada would be very receptive to such a request?
I will stop there with my questions and continue later.
º (1610)
Ms. Dyane Adam: I will try to answer quite quickly.
Let me give you a little background. You have to be cautious about the total amounts shown in a budget, because as you mentioned, a budget for $13 million in 1992-93, and a budget of $11 million in 2001-2002, are not at all the same. The best indicator is that in 1992-93, the Commissioner's Office had a staff of 170 full-time employees. However, in 2001-2002, with ,say, a budget of $11.335 million, we had a staff of 127 people. We have now increased that number, because we got some new funding.
What was the impact of this reduction? Of course, ours was not the only federal institution that experienced a budget cut. We do agree on that, do we not? The communications budget, since you mentioned this issue, has been eliminated to all intents and purposes. With the exception of the almost mandatory brochures, there was no information available on the act or on language rights. An audit unit was eliminated as well. Of course, we also rationalized our administrative services, and so on. So that was the result of this reduced budget.
The Commissioner's Office has not really done any active promotional work with younger generations. Some of them are not necessarily aware of their rights. We know that education, training and promotion must always be done for each generation. That was not the case. So that is one of our priorities, and we did get $1 million last year to carry out this type of activity. Some products have been developed on an ad hoc basis to bring us up to date. The products are one thing. We are not talking about television or radio campaigns, because $1 million is not enough to do that sort of thing. It would cost much more to have a genuine promotional campaign.
You asked whether Heritage Canada would be receptive to this. First of all, as far as the Commissioner's Office goes, it is not up to Heritage Canada... Heritage Canada could very well promote the official languages, and that would be most desirable. It could do so in a much more positive way and target a group such as young people, but the Commissioner's Office, like other ombudsmen, could do some real promotional work if there were more money. It could therefore inform people about their rights and the ability to make complaints about administrative or other problems, but we are not doing that.
º (1615)
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Since you say this is not the responsibility of Heritage Canada, whose responsibility is it? The government's?
Ms. Dyane Adam: We could do that, because, after all, we are an agency...
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But if you want to request $5 million for an advertising campaign, where do you turn?
Ms. Dyane Adam: To Treasury Board.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Would you intend to do that? Could the committee suggest that you do that? In Quebec, in 30 minutes, there are about three federal ads: for weights and measures; what we put in our luggage; the Atlantic tomcod; fishing boats; all sorts of things. I think that fishing boats are important, but I also think that minority francophone and anglophone communities should be important for the government as well. That is my view.
Do you intend to ask Treasury Board to advertise the Official Languages Act and the rights of minorities, or is it up to the committee to suggest that you ask for that?
Ms. Dyane Adam: I would certainly agree if the committee were to... I am here to have a dialogue with you. You are close to the communities, close to your constituents, close to the people of Canada. For our part, there is certainly no lack of will to provide more information to Canadians. However, the problem is one of inadequate resources.
In this submission we are developing at the moment, we have not increased the budget for promotional activities, but I am open to all sorts of suggestions. There is no doubt that several millions dollars would have to be added.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.
Let us go to the government side of the table. Is someone ready? If not, I will go to the Senate.
Ms. Thibeault.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): I will be brief. I see here at point C on page 6 of the report: “Create a bilingual work environment”. Here again, in order to promote such a program, I imagine you would need more money, if the work is to be done properly. So I would ask again, can we help you with this?
Ms. Dyane Adam: We are submitting a request for an additional $4 million. I imagine that with such an amount, the Commissioner's Office could re-establish an audit unit, something we will need in a very different service delivery context, with a variety of accountability requirements. What I mean is that there is a trend at the moment to leave it up to institutions to evaluate themselves, more or less. That is a good thing. I think that institutions should develop their own ways of measuring the quality of their services, but independent audits are nevertheless required. That is the role of the Auditor General as regards the use of resources, but it is also the role of the Commissioner's Office as regards official languages. That is one point.
The other has to do with parliamentary liaison. I firmly believe that the Commissioner's Office has a role to play with parliamentarians. It is its role to provide you with analyses, as far as possible, of the various bills, regulations and all matters that could have an impact on official languages. It is up to the Commissioner's Office to make this information available to parliamentarians who are reviewing these matters, to help them make certain decisions. Two years ago, we had almost no resources for parliamentary liaison. We really should establish such a unit. We started to become more active this year, as a result of your pressure. And we are seeing the impact of that. I view this as a good cooperative process, and I play my role as an officer of Parliament much more if I work more closely with parliamentarians and if my team does as well.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: You told us earlier that the audit unit had disappeared because of budget cuts. How long ago was that?
º (1620)
Ms. Dyane Adam: I will ask my colleague, Mr. Robichaud, who is the Director General of Investigations, to answer your question. He was there when this change happened.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I would like to hear about this.
Mr. Michel Robichaud (Director General, Investigations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): This is something we did before 1994. In 1994, with the cutbacks, we eliminated a unit in which about seven people were doing audits. Since then, we have no longer been doing audits following an approved methodology to check how the act is being implemented throughout federal institutions.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I understand that you no longer have this audit unit, but do you feel that there has been a deterioration in this regard since the service was eliminated?
Mr. Michel Robichaud: Yes, through our special, systemic studies, we have detected enforcement problems that often went beyond one department or another. In addition, with increased decentralization as a result of some privatizations, for example, we have noticed that areas farther away from the centre are less likely to follow former policies. I therefore think that there needs to be more auditing of the enforcement of the act in these institutions.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: That is an excellent point. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dyane Adam: May I add something, Mr. Chairman?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Please do.
Ms. Dyane Adam: I think the important thing is to create the impression that institutions are being watched. While we do not necessarily want to get out our hammer and adopt a punitive approach, federal institutions must feel that there is active vigilance. If we know that a police officer can catch us at any time, that conditions our behaviour. If we have the impression that no one can really check on what is being done, that too conditions behaviour.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.
Senator Beaudoin.
Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): Yesterday, I started speaking about the equality of the two official languages of Canada, regardless of the location, and regardless of the number of people using the language. I would like to ask you about the financial situation. Some time ago, in Moncton, Minister Dion spoke about asymmetrical language rights in Canada. He was quite right, and I agree with him completely. It all depends on where we are. Of course, the language that needs protection in North America is French. It is definitely the official language whose situation is the most difficult.
I am not bothered by the fact that sometimes we have to go to the courts. I accept that. I am a jurist, and I know that the power of the courts is essential. Sometimes, we do have to turn to the courts, otherwise, we would get absolutely nowhere.
How can this be included in your budgets? Is there a great disparity, or is it fairly easy to be fair to anglophones and francophones based on the requests you receive?
Ms. Dyane Adam: Senator Beaudoin, does your question relate only to court cases or do you mean in the broader context?
Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I will begin with the court cases, because that is already quite substantial.
Ms. Dyane Adam: We dedicate a large proportion of the office's resources to our primary mandate as an ombudsman. We receive complaints from the Canadian public. The asymmetry is obvious even at that level since 80 per cent of our complaints come from francophone Canadians.
º (1625)
Senator Gérald Beaudoin: How many?
Ms. Dyane Adam: About 80 per cent. We investigate the shortcomings in services offered to French-speaking citizens. In Quebec, we receive complaints from equal numbers of francophones and anglophones. Our investigative mandate covers services as well as the protection of the French language. I gave Quebec as an example, but outside Quebec, our complaints come mostly from francophones.
Any legal action undertaken by the office has been mainly to protect the linguistic rights of the francophone minority. I would say that in most cases where the office intervened, it was in order to protect education rights or to uphold and seek a better interpretation of clause 23. Of course, in some cases, it was a matter of access to justice, as, for example, in the Beaulac case.
Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would like to discuss Quebec. Of course, Quebec finds itself in a rather special situation, because it is the only province with a Civil Code, while common law, which is also an excellent system, applies in the other provinces. Our Civil Code is in both languages, which means that law graduates from the University of Montreal, from McGill, from Sherbrooke, etc. are fluently bilingual. Our situation is quite different. However, that does not bother me because I think we have to be fair when offering services. If the demand is greater on the francophone side, well, then each case should be judged according to its own merits. In that case, the Official Languages Commissioner, as an ombudsman, must respond to these requests. It is not an equality problem, but just the opposite. You have quoted figures and I have made a note of them. I understand the situation, but we must remember that these facts justify what has been done by the powers that be. Personally, I find that quite satisfying.
There is one thing that does trouble me, however. I hear talk of transfers. You cannot transfer power from the federal to the provincial level or from the provincial level to the federal level, because that would not be constitutional. You can't transfer constitutional powers from one level to the other. You can transfer money, which is something different, and no one will say that it is unconstitutional to do so. Everyone is happy to accept money and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. I just wanted to put that on the record, Mr. Chairman.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.
Senator Setlakwe, please.
Senator Raymond Setlakwe (Les Laurentides, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not sure if I understood correctly when the transfer of funds rather than a change of jurisdiction for manpower was discussed, and when it was said that there was uncertainty as to how receptive the staff was to complaints from anglophones in Quebec. Did I misunderstand?
Ms. Dyane Adam: I am not the one that expressed that concern.
Senator Raymond Setlakwe: Have you had any complaints from anglophones?
Ms. Dyane Adam: With respect to the manpower agreement between the federal government and various provinces, yes, there have been complaints made by the two communities. We have received some complaints from the anglophone community—I am told only one— but I must say that, among all of the agreements that have been signed between the federal government and the provinces, the agreement signed with Quebec is the one that most clearly established the provincial obligations as they relate to services given to the linguistic minority. Some provinces have never signed an agreement, including Ontario. Unless it has happened quite recently, that is still the case. Moreover, there have been problems with service delivery to that community.
Another example of government change relates to the purchase, transfer or privatization of airports. There have been problems with the recognition and maintenance of vested linguistic rights.
º (1630)
Senator Raymond Setlakwe: But that has nothing to do with the transfer of resources.
Ms. Dyane Adam: No.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.
Senator Léger.
Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.): I just have one comment to make.
You told us what you are doing. You mentioned country-wide public meetings on what has been going on for 30 years. I noted that, twice, you used the words "minority" and "majority".
That is all I have to say. Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. We will begin the second round.
[English]
Mr. Goldring is next for five minutes in this second round.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I'd like to thank my colleague for a very cordial invitation. Montreal is a favourite destination of mine. I have been travelling to Montreal since 1962--over a long period of time--and have probably lived in Quebec for a year or two.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So I can go with you to Edmonton and you can go with me to--
Mr. Peter Goldring: I think so.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Check out the details on that and we'll make some plans.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.
Mr. Peter Goldring: But I would like to explore a little further the.... I am receiving concerns from the anglo community in Quebec. I recently received a press release from one of the provincial political groups, where they were specifically referring to the Ottawa court challenges program and their inability to access that. It is my feeling that--
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): This is not in order. The court challenges program is not under the jurisdiction of the Official Languages Commissioner, nor of any agency of Parliament. It's an autonomous, independent body that makes its own decisions.
Mr. Peter Goldring: My question was going to be that given your role on linguistic questioning and concerns, do you have any authority? Do you talk to that board? Do you talk to that organization? Does your group or organization have any representation there? If this person or other groups have concerns on that, they can still come and make a presentation to you, so you can perhaps intermediate, discuss, and be sure they're receiving fairness in their questions and concerns?
Ms. Dyane Adam: I have two answers on this. First, I have also heard those concerns. Second, this program is independent. It's like any funding program. They have their own mechanism, and it's not up to me to judge the impartiality or not of this particular group. My office did intervene at one point to reinforce the necessity of sustaining the program, because at some point it was caught.
I think that's where we would intervene. It's something that's important, it needs to exist, and it should be accessible as a form of assistance. But beyond that, they are independent.
Mr. Peter Goldring: But would it be fair to say that if groups such as this had concerns on it, they could go to your office for some type of remedial action? In other words, we understand it is a separate body, but I'm reading in your talk here that you act as ombudsperson in relation to the other parties and partners.
I certainly think the court challenges program would be considered to be one of these partner parties that you could take these concerns to and ask about, through the different lens of the official languages concerns, to see if they have been meted out the best information and consideration possible.
º (1635)
Ms. Dyane Adam: No. We don't get involved. This is an independent body. They have their own board, and it's up to their board to judge the criteria of governing the decision-making.
I don't think we should confuse my role as an ombudsman receiving complaints with institutions that are subjected to the act also under my responsibility. I will not investigate the decisions of any tribunal, etc.
Mr. Peter Goldring: In carrying their concerns forward, the specific nature of their concerns is provincial legislation that is being proposed. What is the appropriate avenue where they should take their linguistic concerns on proposed legislation? Is it appropriate for them to bring these concerns forward to you, to have some intervention on their behalf?
Ms. Dyane Adam: I would recommend that you speak to the Minister of Justice because it is within that department. It's not for me to judge any decisions made by that program, as to why and how they allocate their funds. But I know there's a lot more demand than funds.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Your time's up.
Senator Gauthier is next for five minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I think that you undertake surveys from time to time. And there are also studies.
In your brief, you mentioned two studies: one on services and the other on clause 23. Are those two studies available? Could we have a copy? Thank you.
I would like to return to the enforcement of federal laws and the asymmetry that Senator Beaudoin spoke of earlier. In theory, all federal legislation should apply in a symmetrical fashion—and I said, in theory. Witnesses have told us that there are Canadian laws that are not applied symmetrically. For example, there is asymmetry in the Divorce Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. I'm sure that, as a federal ombudsman, that would be of interest to you.
Have you examined the Divorce Act or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which are both federal?
º (1640)
Ms. Dyane Adam: No, we do not carry out that type of study.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would ask you to consider it. If necessary, I will move that we increase your budget so that you might undertake studies on those two issues. Mr. Colvin, the president of the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, when he appeared before us, told us that in London, Ontario, federal law permits divorce proceedings in French, but there are no judges available to hear these cases. For example, a woman seeking support payments will be told that there is no judge available to hear the case in French and she will have to wait two or three months for a judge to travel to London, Ontario. But if she wants to have her case heard in English, she can have a divorce granted the following week. When we ask for services in French in my province, Ontario, I am told that there is no demand. I understand! How can there be any demand under such circumstances.
I would like you to look into that. If you need funding, come and ask me and I will see to it. You should examine all federal legislation that is in need of attention.
In your comments, you said that Canadians had to be informed and consulted on a regular basis. I agree with you on that. What initiatives have you taken to regularly consult Canadians and to inform people like, for example, Mr. Goldring? How do you let him know that these are federal issues, rather than provincial or municipal matters? Those people have to understand that the Official Languages Act is a federal law that has a federal application.
Do you have any quick answers to my questions?
Ms. Dyane Adam: With respect to consultations, we have five regional offices that cover the entire country. Some liaison officers have been added in a few provinces. They gather information in the regions, in the field, so as to inform the average citizen as well as the various levels of government.
We have a decentralization mechanism for that, and I also undertake consultations on a regular basis. We are, at this time, developing advisory committees that will allow us to interface with youth groups, so as to establish contact with the up-and-coming generation. Of course, there are also speeches to make, seminars to attend, publications, etc. All of our speeches, studies and interventions can be found on our website, which helps to extend our reach.
You asked me another question. We have not done a survey in quite some time. If there was one, it was quite a number of years or maybe even decades ago.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have not done any recent surveys. Are there any planned for this year?
Ms. Dyane Adam: That is not in our plan.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do you have the necessary funding?
Ms. Dyane Adam: No.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: How much does a survey cost?
Ms. Dyane Adam: It's very expensive.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Give me a ballpark figure.
Ms. Dyane Adam: We will tell you that later.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. We may come back to that. Madam Commissioner, you promised to provide Senator Gauthier with two pieces of information. Would you please send it to the committee clerk so that we can make it available to everyone.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau, you have five minutes.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would just like to take 10 seconds to invite all of these journalists to travel with us. Thank you.
Ms. Adam, will the $4 million increase you are requesting, in constant or current dollars, be more or less equivalent to your 1993-94 budget?
Ms. Dyane Adam: Well, I am not an economist either.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Gauthier and myself are not economists, but we still provide funding.
Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm not sure about that!
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: More or less.
Ms. Dyane Adam: I would evaluate it according to what we do. It allows us to do things that we have not yet been capable of doing, thus becoming more diversified in our intervention, to better target what must be done and to do it more efficiently.
Any type of advertising campaign could be quite costly. We have already looked into it, and have found that a nation-wide campaign could cost as much as $20 million. Canada is a big country. We have two official languages, various age groups, etc. We had looked at some type of sustained promotion of official languages. That would involve many millions of dollars. Surveys would also cost millions of dollars.
Of course, these are all worthy initiatives. Should the office be doing this? We will see.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You would therefore like the committee to move that your budget be increased by $4 million. I am not an expert on costs either, but I was wondering what you would think of a promotion campaign for official languages similar to what was done for the Semaine nationale de la francophonie, with inserts in all of the dailies and a 20-page colour supplement?
º (1645)
Ms. Dyane Adam: I would be more demanding than that, Mr. Sauvageau, because a once-a-year promotion is not effective. To truly have an impact, the message must be repeated, often in various ways. Communications experts are very clear on that point. We would have to have something more sustained.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's fine. That is what the committee is supposed to do. We will work on that.
I would like to help my friend Mr. Goldring on something that is within your jurisdiction. Your mandate includes the passport office.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Well then, listen to this.
In Toronto, at the main office, there are 18 wickets. In each of those 18 wickets, there is a little sign that reads: "For service in French, please go to the North York office." That isn't just next door. I was told that it is 15 subway stops or 20 minutes from the main office. It is like having French service available at Place Ville-Marie and English service in Laval.
Could a complaint be made about that?
Ms. Dyane Adam: Well, in the implementation of the act, demand and the vocation of the office must be examined, and we must determine if the service is equivalent. Offices have been identified as...
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: When people have to travel 20 minutes by car, they are not being given the same level of service that is given to people from the other community. I agree with the fact... Numbers are important. If we are told that bilingual service is available in Toronto, that it is 20 minutes away by car, it's the same as the case of someone wanting a divorce in French in London. Yes, you can get a divorce in French, but you will have to wait three months. If you want a divorce in English, that can be done immediately. I think those services are comparable.
So, I would ask you to look at what is happening in Toronto. When Franco-Ontarians, Canadian francophones, want to have a passport issued in Toronto, they have to drive 20 minutes to do so.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If I may, I would like to know, before we are forced to adjourn, whether or not we should adopt a resolution either to support or reject the estimates for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, for the year 2002-2003.
The joint chairs would entertain such a motion.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to ask a question before we move on to the motion.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Go ahead.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Are these the estimates as they have been presented or the estimates that are being requested?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I was waiting for that question. You might remember the same thing happening last year. The Standing Orders are very clear on that: we cannot increase the estimates.
Last year, in its fourth report, the committee was unanimous in asking the government to increase the budget of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. As the Official Languages Commissioner told us, an increase of $2.4 million was granted.
Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I don't think we should be shy. The Auditor General's budget was increased by $10 million this year: it has gone from $68 million to $78 million. I know that there must be a good reason for that; the office does a good job in auditing and their staff is very busy. But the Official Languages Commissioner also does a good job and she has a lot of work to do. Some things must be taken care of.
As you so rightly said, I think it is essential. The speed limit is posted on highway signs every three or four kilometres. Why is that done at such short intervals? Because once is not enough. It's like a nail: you have to hit it more than once to hammer it home.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. It is your turn, Mr. Goldring.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to correct a comment that was made a few minutes ago by the senator opposite when he suggested that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be for provincial.... I would think it would be for the province to carry out, and I'm referring here to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It clearly states on page 5 that they offer official language minority communities the legal assistance they need to claim their linguistic rights guaranteed under sections of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That very clearly states that this office is to offer the official language minority communities legal assistance.
Second, it also states on page 7 “by intervening with provincial and territorial decision-makers”.
So my question is, am I to assume from reading this that this Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is empowered to intervene with provincial and territorial decision-makers on their behalf if they have the questions, and also offer the legal assistance? And would that not be what these organizations are asking for? In other words, do you actively intervene and offer assistance? That's specifically what I'm reading here.
º (1650)
Ms. Dyane Adam: I believe I just answered that question previously. I believe one member asked it. We do intervene in cases where the question of equality of French and English is in front of the court. So we will intervene...we're not the legal representative of a particular group--they'll have their own legal adviser--but we will choose to intervene.
The other thing, too, in cases where it is our own Official Languages Act that is involved, for example, the Contraventions Act, where we file a legal challenge against Justice Canada on behalf of a complainant--
Mr. Peter Goldring: But this states clearly to offer the legal assistance. It's very clear.
Do you offer the legal assistance?
Ms. Dyane Adam: We intervene in cases as an intervener, but we're not the representative--
Mr. Peter Goldring: That's not offering assistance.
Ms. Dyane Adam: We support, in fact, the official languages communities or complainants. A recent case would be Mr. Quigley in New Brunswick. You are probably aware of his challenge concerning access to the broadcast of the House of Commons proceedings in the language of his choice. He had his own lawyer, but the commissioner's office intervened, not on behalf of but to support the complainant or the official language community. Do you follow me?
Mr. Peter Goldring: I follow you. It just doesn't say that here. It says “offer...the legal assistance they need to claim”, which would suggest doing it.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Legal as opposed to monetary.
May we have a motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have a motion.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Okay. If I may give you a hand, we need three motions. The first one would be in support of the vote as submitted. The second would request that the chairman table the report in both Houses and the third would be to express a request. We will, therefore, take them in that order.
PRIVY COUNCIL
Commissioner of Official Languages
Estimate 35—Program expenditures.........................9,944 000
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I move, seconded by Ms. Thibeault, that vote 35 be adopted as submitted.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will take them one at a time.
[English]
That's the motion on the floor. Is there any further debate on that?
º (1655)
[Translation]
(Vote 35 carries)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Once again, Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Someone is against it because it is not enough.
Secondly, I move that the report be tabled in both Houses.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There's a motion on the floor that the support of vote 35 be presented by the co-chairs to both houses of Parliament.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have two requests rather than one. The first would be for you to have the extra $4 million, and the second would be that a national campaign be undertaken, supported by the committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger):
We will take them one at a time, if we may, it will make things easier. Last year, the report that was tabled before both Houses read as follows:
| BE IT RESOLVED THAT,--The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages ask the government to consider the possibility of increasing the funding given to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. |
That was what we asked for. No amount was quoted at that time, to my knowledge.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It would be better if we set an amount.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have no problem with that Mr. Sauvageau. It is your resolution.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to indicate $4 million, or they will increase it to [Editor's Note: inaudible] and they will say that it has been increased.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We have a resolution to the effect that the committee ask both Houses to increase the vote for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages by $4 million. That is our request. Any comment or debate?
Senator Gauthier?
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why $4 million? We could say $5 million.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It's because she requested $4 million.
Madam Commissioner.
Ms. Dyane Adam: In listening to you and in taking into account the questions that you have asked and the ideas that you have put forward, I would say that the $4 million would cover the needs that we have identified, the orientations that I referred to. But since you have identified other actions that could be taken by the office, I would suggest that my team determine the cost of some of your suggestions, for example, the survey as well as the advertising and public awareness campaign, and tell you what type of projections they come up with. Then you could make the necessary adjustments.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would move $4 million plus a figure to be determined after we receive your estimates.
Ms. Dyane Adam: Agreed.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would like to point out that this committee must report to the House before the end of May. We might have to revisit this. Even if we move some type of recommendation, nothing prevents us from reviewing it at a later date.
Mr. Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: With respect to an awareness campaign, I have no idea how much that will cost. There was talk of doing surveys. How much does that cost? We will know later on. What I would prefer us to do is to say that the committee feels that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages should undertake a national awareness campaign to draw attention to and promote official languages in Canada through surveys, etc.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) : May I suggest that we go to the motion on the basic budget for $4 million. We will come back to Senator Gauthier's suggestion right afterwards.
[English]
Okay. The motion on the floor is that this committee express to both houses a wish to see the base credit of the official languages commissioner's office increased by $4 million.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, I told you that I would come back to you. Would you like to repeat your second suggestion, please?
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages undertake a national campaign in order to inform Canadians about official languages with respect to service, language of use and work and, third, that there be fair representation.
It may be possible to develop all sorts of ideas.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The first version was very good. We will take what you said the first time, if you don't mind.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Fine.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The proposal is for the committee to express a second wish, which would be to have the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages undertake a national campaign of awareness about the Official Languages Act and that the necessary resources be provided to the office for that purpose.
» (1700)
[English]
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): May we have authority by motion to report on these two wishes?
[Translation]
Senator Setlakwe, that would take a resolution to the effect that the joint chairs would report these wishes to their respective chambers.
(Motion carried)
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If we wish to continue, we may--we have some time--but we've done our business, so may I suggest that we adjourn.
[Translation]
I would like to thank Ms. Adam. She has been extraordinarily helpful this week, having appeared before the committee two days in a row. We know that that requires a great deal of preparation. It has helped us fill our schedule for next week.
I would mention to the committee members that on Monday, we will be hearing from the Minister of Immigration, the Hon. Denis Coderre, and on Tuesday, the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Martin Cochon, will be here.
Senator.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...ombudsman for the Francophonie.
Ms. Dyane Adam: What does that mean? It comes under the Francophone Games, and it includes all the ombudsmen of the francophone countries. They are not all ombudsmen, since some countries are still in a state of relative dictatorship.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The meeting is now adjourned. Thank you.