LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

• 1530

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Would the cameramen please leave the room.

I'd like to welcome you all, particularly Ms. Adam.

Today we will be discussing with the Commissioner of Official Languages a report as well as another document. The first hour will be devoted to the report and then we shall consider the other document. I'll try to be strict about time because there will be a vote and the bell will start ringing at 5:15 p.m. Before beginning, I'll allow myself a slight departure from this rule in order to extend our congratulations to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Some of you are probably aware of a decision taken by the Federal Court a month ago relating to a fairly complicated matter; it concerns the power given by the Contraventions Act to delegate a certain degree of responsibility to the provinces. The Commissioner of Official Languages and l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario challenged this decision. The ruling, in the main, upheld the position of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and yesterday the government of Canada decided that it would not appeal the decision.

I would therefore like, on your behalf, to recognize the work done by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages on this issue relating mostly to section 41 of the Official Languages Act as well as section 25. As a result of this work, the matter has been brought to a happy conclusion.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): On a point of order.

You've just told us that Ms. McLellan will not be appealing the case.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That is correct.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Where does this information come from?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The decision was taken yesterday and made public today.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: We always seem to be a bit late.

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

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages): Let me say, to reassure Senator Gauthier, that I also found out only this morning.

Today I'll be making a PowerPoint presentation to you.

The first part of my presentation deals with the first annual report I tabled to Parliament on October 5. I'd like you to note that I will not be presenting a summary or a synthesis of this report but I will be highlighting some of the main themes of the report and will deal particularly with what might be described as a diagnosis of the present state of health of the Canadian official languages policy.

The other topics will be transformations in government, leadership, community development, the promotion of English and French as well as the language of work. Since some of these situations have evolved since the publication of the Annual Report, some of my comments will go beyond what is said in the Report.

The second part of my presentation will deal with a study we have just completed entitled A National Report on Service to the Public in English and French—Time for a Change in Culture.

• 1535

[English]

Now let's go to the diagnosis in the annual report. Basically, the main diagnosis was that after thirty years of official bilingualism, the recurring lack of respect for the Official Languages Act is unacceptable. This is quite evident in the repetitive nature of the complaints we received. We found that corrective measures taken by institutions or agencies are generally superficial and do not change the real nature of the problems, which tend to repeat themselves and recur. We are stuck in a vicious cycle, more or less at a standstill with respect to the implementation of the Official Languages Act in federal institutions.

We also found a chronic lack of in-depth follow-up by institutions in implementing the recommendations made in our complaints investigations and reports. Again, underlying this diagnosis is the question of government transformation.

[Translation]

We have noted not only a standstill in implementation of the act but also regression when it comes to the respect of linguistic rights. The many transformations in government that occurred in the 1990s—program reorganization, the delegation of authority, withdrawal from areas of jurisdiction, privatization—have resulted in a regression in linguistic rights. It is clear that government transformation must not only avoid the erosion of linguistic rights but, in addition to maintaining the present level of achievement, should encourage the constitutional principle of the progression of English and French towards equality.

The recent decision of the Federal Court handed down in March 2001 relating to the Contraventions Act referred to by the joint chairman, is quite clear on the matter. The federal government may no longer escape from its language obligations by transferring or delegating to other levels of government its responsibilities to serve the Canadian public.

Our annual report also deals with the issue of leadership. It is one of the central aspects of the report which calls for a major change to have linguistic duality restored as a central priority through concrete administrative and political accountability. It is important for elected representatives and public servants to reaffirm their commitment and to set an example by showing that official languages are a fundamental value of Canada in their discourse, their vision and their behaviour.

Our Annual Report clearly observes that this commitment is inadequate and must be taken at the highest level. Leadership and example must come from this level.

Since March 2000, there have been some encouraging signs that I would like to emphasize. First of all, at the administrative level, there was the renewed mandate from the deputy minister's committee responsible for official languages, a committee supported by a co-ordinator in the Office of the Privy Council. In addition, there was the Throne Speech in January 2001 with an important reference to official languages, something that had not occurred since 1985.

The appointment today of Mr. Stéphane Dion as Minister responsible for Official Languages is another concrete gesture showing this renewed commitment to political leadership. Our approach, of course, is to support the government so that this commitment takes the form of a series of broad concrete measures and concerted action.

Also of administrative significance, as you may perhaps know, the clerk, Mr. Cappe, included official languages among the five priorities and established performance objectives for the annual evaluation of deputy ministers and senior government officials. We have already observed certain positive changes in this respect.

• 1540

[English]

Now I'll briefly look at five issues at the core of community development. We'll address the issues of part VII: education, early childhood, health, and immigration. This will not be exhaustive, as you know, but we'll focus on these issues today.

[Translation]

As far as Part VII is concerned, government support is essential for the development of official language minority communities. In Part VII of the 1988 act, the federal government undertakes to encourage the development of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada, to provide them with support and promote the full recognition and use of French and English in Canadian society.

Between 1988, the year when the new act was passed, and 1994, there were no measures to implement this statutory commitment. Since 1994, 27 institutions out of 200 have had to consult the communities, develop an action plan and report on the results to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Twenty-seven out of 200 is an unimpressive figure and the results achieved so far are distinctly inadequate.

Why is this so? There is of course the question of resources. But it is mainly because the present system for the implementation of Part VII of the act is inadequate and because the government has taken a very minimalist approach in relation to its scope. The government must demonstrate the importance that it attaches to the vitality of these communities and the recognition of the two official languages in Canada. There must be a rethinking of the implementation regime. Leadership must result from a concerted approach of the eight central agencies. Today we may perhaps have greater reason to hope that this will be possible.

In order to achieve the two objectives of Part VII, objectives relating to the very heart of Canada, the government must consider them to be of central importance in all its decisions relating to policy, programs and, of course, the allocation of resources.

As far as education is concerned, the full implementation of section 23 of the Charter is essential for minority official languages communities. As was noted in the Arsenault-Cameron Supreme Court decision, the school is the most important institution for the survival of the official languages minority.

In the case of the francophone official language community, the target enrolment under section 23 was approximately 232,942 pupils in the 1996 census. At the present time, enrolments in French-language schools have levelled off. Only 54 percent of the target group is now enrolled in French-language schools, 19 years after the Charter was adopted.

In a recent study published a few weeks ago, we recommended the establishment of a national program aimed at recruiting approximately 50,000 more students between now and 2010, in other words within the next 10 years. In order to achieve this plan, various key players must work together, in particular school authorities with parents, the federal government with the provinces and professionals with other partners in education.

• 1545

As far as the English-speaking community in Quebec is concerned, it does have a rather comprehensive educational network up to the university level. This network is, however, subject to growing pressure and does require a certain level of reinvestment, particularly in areas outside Montreal where the school population is smaller and more dispersed. There is an increasing trend towards alternative methods of teaching, as is the case in other provinces, with respect to education in the minority language.

Turning now to early childhood

[English]

or early childhood, this is also important to achieve the full implementation of section 23 of the charter.

The following services need to be developed, first of all: an adequate network of daycare facilities, additional pre-school services, and appropriate early childhood programs. These pre-school services are essential for schools to remedy the gradual erosion of minority communities and enhance their development. The national children's agenda should provide the necessary resources to both English-speaking and French-speaking minority communities with respect to early childhood objectives and needs.

On health, this is one of the top priorities of all Canadians; this is the same for the official language community. The language in which quality health care services are provided is of fundamental importance. Minority institutions in this area are a matter of human dignity.

This is why the commissioner's office has added its support to the movement to save the Hôpital Montfort, including support in the courts. In Quebec, our office has intervened to encourage the provincial government to maintain the federal-provincial agreement on health and social services for the English-speaking community.

There are some encouraging signs with respect to health. Health Canada has shown leadership by, first of all, creating a national committee composed of bureaucrats and representatives of the francophone and Acadian communities, which advises the minister on services to the minority communities. A similar committee has also been created to look at the unique challenges facing the English-speaking community in Quebec. Those are positive movements.

Another leading issue I would like to raise with you today is immigration. Since Confederation, 14 million people have immigrated to Canada. Immigrants helped sustain and strengthen the position of the English-speaking population, while the francophone population relied primarily on natural increase for population growth. Decline of francophone birth rates around the 1960s, and significant rates of language transfers to English, make immigration important to official language communities. In the last 15 years only 3% of the immigrants who arrived in Canada had French as the mother tongue, and some 82% of those settled in Quebec.

Preliminary results of the study we have undertaken in my office confirm the absence of recruitment efforts to attract francophone immigrants to communities outside Quebec and difficulty with their integration. Canada's approach should be consistent with the demographic policy that respects the government's commitment to the vitality of minority communities.

As you know, there's a bill, Bill C-11, now being studied by a committee, and my office.... We have made the following recommendation, which is to add to the objective the following statement:

to ensure the demographic renewal of our official languages communities in Canada through the processes of selection and [settlement] of immigrants and their integration into Canadian society.

• 1550

This is one of the two recommendations we made to amend Bill C-11, and this committee may wish to support our recommendation.

[Translation]

Another central aim of Canadian official language policy relates to the promotion of English and French in Canadian society. Today I intend to deal with this question from the point of view of the national capital and also from the point of view of Canadian society at large.

English and French were recognized as official languages by the City of Ottawa in 1970 but with the new city, the concept has changed. As you know, the city councillors are now considering the place of official languages in the new enlarged City of Ottawa.

The recognition of the official languages is indispensable for our national capital and, in my view, unavoidable. One of our recommendations is that Heritage Canada develop a transitional support program for the recognition of official languages in the City of Ottawa. In our opinion, this would be a concrete gesture on the part of the federal government to support the municipal government in fully implementing a bilingual national capital.

Let us turn now to the promotion of French and English in Canadian society. Everyone has a contribution to make to Canadian linguistic duality and it is very important for members of Parliament, senators and ministers to give visibility to French and English and the image of equality befitting their status as official languages of Canada. They must demonstrate their attachment to Canadian linguistic duality and be willing to defend and promote it both in the exercise of their functions and in their public statements.

I could give you several examples of people or leaders who are not afraid to express their point of view, among others before this committee, when studying the issue of CPAC and bilingualism, since of course the House of Commons is very important. As for Air Canada, Minister Collenette did make a point of clarifying certain obligations in his revision of the act governing this carrier.

Still in relation to Canadian society, each minister, each agency or Crown corporation must, in their sector of activity, contribute to the recognition of the equality of French and English in Canadian society as a whole. In order for this question of linguistic duality to be seen as one of the central concerns of Canadians, I think it is important for the elected representatives and the people who represent them to hold the torch high.

Lastly, language of work is another aspect of Canadian official language policy. The act provides that federal employees are entitled to make use of their language at work and institutions have the obligation to create and maintain an environment favourable to the actual use of both languages.

Our investigations and examinations showed that French still has a limited place in institutional activities. The lack of bilingualism of senior officials and supervisors is a major obstacle.

The president of Treasury Board, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Committee of deputy ministers in charge of official languages have made the language of work their priority. The message must be clearly given to the heads of the institutions and we must expect that they themselves and their managers give the proper example. A bilingual environment is based on the respect of the other's language and recognizes the enrichment that follows for the person and the organization.

• 1555

The interrelationships between both linguistic groups are a key factor in creating a culture centered on the contribution of both languages. The Commissioner's office and Treasury Board, during the next two months, will be undertaking joint studies to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of those inter-relationships and suggest appropriate interventions.

After all, an environment where both languages are used on a current basis favours better delivery of services in both languages.

[English]

With respect to the quality of service in French and English, this is a core element of the federal official language program. In our annual report, chapter 4 was devoted to this issue. With the publication of the new report, we move beyond the issues raised in our October annual report. So if you will allow me, I will proceed to briefly present the new national report on quality of service in French and English.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Allow me, Ms. Adam, a question. Tell us about the report: Un changement de culture s'impose, Time for a Change in Culture.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You should mention that you are presenting it for the first time, at this point, if I understand correctly.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes. We chose the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages to introduce it for the first time.

First, let's talk about the objective of the report. After an initial study in 1994 on services provided to the Canadian public, the Commissioner's office did a follow-up in the offices designated as bilingual in this country between 1996 and 2000. We did a follow-up in each province and territory and in the National Capital Region and we made some 1,400 recommendations or so to the 514 offices we checked.

It is essentially the summary of a whole series of verifications that were made over approximately six years. So it's really a summary and an analysis of those studies.

The objective of the evaluation isn't only to establish the facts, but also to suggest possible solutions and guidelines to bring about sustainable and real change in the provision of services in both official languages. Actually, this report follows in the tradition of support to changes favourable to full respect for the Official Languages Act. It's through actions like those that the Commissioner's office acts as an agent of change.

We are not content with diagnosis and fact-finding; we also want to intervene in the cure or to favour change. The report contains 22 recommendations most of which are addressed to Treasury Board, but some recommendations address the Canadian Centre for Management Development, the Public Service Commission and all those institutions falling under the act and more specifically the senior officials and managers of the institutions.

[English]

The Official Languages Act and regulations stipulate that federal institutions must offer services in English and French in designated bilingual offices where there is significant demand or where warranted by the nature of the office. Some of the basic findings are from our follow-up study. First, only two-thirds of the designated offices have a sufficient bilingual capacity, in contrast to three-quarters of the offices during the 1994 study.

The physical elements of service, such as documentation, forms, and pictograms, still pose this difficulty—notwithstanding the relative ease of correcting these aspects.

• 1600

As for the human elements of service, bilingual greetings are definitely lacking, since only one office out of five greets clients in both official languages. Telephone service has regressed: service is provided seven times out of ten, rather than eight times out of ten, as it was during the initial study in 1994. Service in person was only available 75% of the time—a situation that remains unchanged since 1994.

[Translation]

In our report, faced with those facts, we emphasize the need for a major change in the federal organizational culture concerning linguistic duality. The culture must be favourable to providing services in both languages. That's a fundamental condition. To change the present situation, official languages must be integrated into the very culture of the organizations.

Civil servants at all levels must understand the social and human project behind the legislative one. Serving the public in both official languages through assuring equivalent quality must be far more than just implementing a series of rules prescribed by an act: It is recognizing and respecting the distinctiveness of our fellow Canadians in their language and their culture.

In any case, I would like to read out part of the Bilodeau decision which, in my opinion, goes to the very heart of what the integration of linguistic duality in the organizational culture of our institutions must be and demonstrates the human routes that are necessary for there to be real improvement in services provided in French and in English in our institutions.

The Supreme Court of Canada said:

The importance of language rights is grounded in the essential role that language plays in human existence, in its development and dignity. It is through language that we are able to form concepts: to structure and order the world around us. Language bridges the gap between isolation and community, allowing humans to delineate the rights and the duties they hold in respect of one another and thus to live in the society.

Official languages, in our opinion, must be integrated within the whole of the service philosophy that guides policies, decisions, attitudes and actions of the civil servants, otherwise we will remain with a codified interpretation of services reduced to a simple legal obligation detached from its real meaning and human grounding.

What conditions are favourable to provision of services in both official languages? First, you need leadership. We often come back to that, but that's where it starts. A political and administrative leadership that is strong, consistent and based on shared values is essential. The values of the leaders speak more loudly through what is done than what is said.

Another condition: the official languages program must be integrated into the strategic planning of the institutions. All levels of the organization must make a commitment to ensuring the quality of service in both languages and this does not concern only those in positions designated bilingual.

Language training and the training that has to do with official languages for employees, officials and recruits must be a strategic element in the institution's operations. Ongoing contacts with the official language minority communities have a positive impact on the provision of bilingual services and also constitute favourable ground for provision of services. To ensure the objectives are attained, measurement tools and performance indicators must be set up.

• 1605

Finally, the Prime Minister has just appointed a new working group to modernize the management of human resources in the public service. This is an unheard-of opportunity. I dare hope that this group will take my recommendations into account. This is a unique opportunity to ensure that official languages will be an integral part of this reform and it is important that you, the members of this committee, support this orientation.

[English]

So among the various factors, we must play an active role in ensuring that linguistic duality becomes an integral part of the public service culture. At the top of the list I have the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Privy Council, the Treasury Board, deputy ministers, heads of organizations, regional directors of institutions, and managers of designated offices. This is a joint effort.

The Canadian Centre for Management Development, in cooperation with other central agencies, must prepare both managers and public service recruits to meet the challenges of providing citizens with bilingual services. Beyond the action plans and corrective measures submitted by institutions, Treasury Board must make these institutions responsible for achieving the objectives of the official languages program. More frequent use of imperative staffing for positions serving the public is a must, as is the periodic second-language evaluation of incumbents in bilingual positions.

In concluding this presentation, I would like to say that the road to linguistic equality—to full recognition of the rights of official languages in communities—is far from straight. But its challenges can be overcome by unambiguous commitment from political and administrative leaders. Only by entrenching the principle of linguistic duality at their hearts will institutions succeed in ensuring full recognition and implementation.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Translation]

I will be pleased to answer your questions or hear your comments or suggestions.

[English]

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

May I suggest that since we may all want to speak, I will be strict on the time limits. We have seven minutes in the first rounds, and then it will be five minutes.

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, Madam Commissioner. It's a pleasure to see you here with us this afternoon.

[English]

I'm a member of Parliament for a riding that is partially located within the new amalgamated city of Ottawa. I would therefore like to direct my question and commentary towards that particular part of your presentation, and also of your annual report.

I'm going to present a thesis to you and ask for your commentary, if you would be so generous. It seems to me that the purpose of a just and reasonable language policy, such as was advocated by André Laurendeau and Davidson Dunton, is to serve unilingual Canadians of both groups. If we were all bilingual, we could talk to each other in whatever language we thought we could best express ourselves in.

But unilingual Canadians, both francophones and anglophones, have the greatest need for assured services, and also for the reasonable and equitable availability of work positions in the federal public service and in provincial and municipal public services.

Now, I think there's an inevitable balancing act, in access to federal government positions, where possible, between the legitimate interests of minority communities—whether it's francophones outside Quebec or anglophones within Quebec—for bilingual services and the legitimate interests of members of the majority community, and I'm thinking here of unilingual members of the majority communities, because unilingual people are in fact the majority in both communities. .

• 1610

I note that the B and B Commission observed that positions should be unilingual wherever possible, on an equitable basis. They should be bilingual only where—and I believe this is a quote: “the language defines the job itself”.

I now turn to the question of the status of the city of Ottawa—whether it will become an officially bilingual city or not. If you turn to page 23 of the English version of your annual report, you made what I thought was an excellent observation in regard to the city of Montreal. You said:

...the Office of the Commissioner asked authorities to ensure the preservation of the bilingual status of English-speaking districts, following a possible merger of Greater Montreal.

—which, of course, is taking place. Of course the subtext is that there would be some unilingual francophone districts as well, French language only, in which services would be provided by the municipal authorities only in French.

Therefore I was a bit surprised to see that you had a very different recommendation on the subsequent page, page 24, with regard to Ottawa. I'm quoting again:

The Commissioner has intervened several times with regard to municipal amalgamation in Ottawa. She attaches crucial importance to the case of Ottawa because it is the capital of Canada, and it would be inconceivable for the two official languages not to have equal status there.

The problem I have with this statement is that Ottawa is not a homogeneous city. That is, the very substantial francophone population and the very substantial anglophone population are not spread evenly across the city.

There is a substantial area of Ottawa—we all know this—in which francophones are about half the population, or even a bit more, depending on how one measures. Vanier comes to mind as the most obvious example.

But at the same time, if I look at the parts of my own riding within the city of Ottawa—in what used to be West Carleton township—I see that out of the 16,000 residents there, 13,000 are unilingual anglophones. Only 15 are unilingual francophones. So I think it would be pushing the point to argue that there's a need for services there. Similarly, in Kanata, out of 48,000 residents, only 185 are unilingual francophones.

So I think there's a real danger in trying to make a one-size-fits-all policy. I'm not sure if that's what you're advocating. But I think if we were to do that, we might wind up getting a solution substantially inferior to what would be available if we took a regional approach—as has in fact been done in any number of places with large and unequally distributed populations.

With that, I would invite your comments.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'd like to comment first on the question of official bilingual policy at the federal level. You stated something to the effect that the policy was developed mostly for unilingual people. In fact, the policy is clear. Whether you're bilingual or not is not important. I think what is, in the imperative of the federal government here, is that it's the language of your choice.

Mr. Scott Reid: I think you're right. That is what the Official Languages Act seeks to do. It's my impression, from reading the various reports of the B and B Commission, that in fact it says that the point is to try to provide for unilingual people. At the time, of course, unilingual francophones in particular were effectively shut out of civil service posts and so on. That was what I was referring to.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, but I think the current history is probably more actual. Our current policy is not geared towards what B and B may have believed at the time.

So right now, what we are functioning under here is that Canadians can be served in the language of their choice. Okay?

• 1615

With respect to your comments that Ottawa is not a homogeneous city, and that anglophones, francophones, and bilingual people are spread differently...you are suggesting that services may vary according to different parts of this city. That makes me think a lot about Canada too. We are a bilingual country, we do have an official bilingualism policy, and we have adapted our policy to regional realities. There are fewer offices designated to offer services in both official languages in populations that are mostly homogeneous.

So I think if Canada can do it, Ottawa as the capital can certainly develop a policy that would reflect the bilingual character of our country—and still be flexible enough to take into consideration some of the issues you have raised.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you. Merci.

[Translation]

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

Senator Gauthier.

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

Good afternoon, Madam. I've been waiting for a long time to have the pleasure of meeting you in committee. I'm very happy to see this happening. Over five years, this committee met the Official Languages Commissioner four times to discuss his annual report; four time in five years. We can't say that it was a very tiring task.

I'm quite happy to see you because your report is detailed, simple and easy to read. It doesn't hold together very well, on the other hand. May be you'd need better glue because it comes apart easily. I had to use two copies as the first one is nothing more than a whole pile of separate sheets at this point. I'm just telling you that in passing.

I appreciated the nuance you made between bilingualism and linguistic duality, if I understood your comment correctly. Our country has two official languages. That doesn't mean that everyone must become bilingual. However, that does mean that federal establishments must be able to serve our fellow citizens in the language of their choice, whether French or English.

To get back to the report, the act authorizes you to investigate and make recommendations to the authorities responsible for our federal institutions. If you are not satisfied with the reaction or a follow-up to your recommendation, then you can inform the Governor in Council of this fact. If you're not happy with the way Cabinet receives your report, you do have the right to put it to Parliament.

You're under an obligation to table one report per year. I don't know that any other reports were tabled since you've been appointed to your position, 16 or 18 months ago. Did you table any other reports with any other government organizations since you've become the Commissioner of Official Languages?

Ms. Dyane Adam: In fact, I've tabled no other reports directly before Parliament, like the one here, which is an annual report. However, I did table many studies and special reports. I could list a few: on Internet, on Canadian sports; of course, this last report which has to do with the implementation of clause 23, in other words on schools. I forget. I don't know if there were any others. Those are the main ones.

There were a few other reports, for example on co-operation between communities and our federal institutions, on the ways of cooperating, in fact, to encourage federal institutions to act and develop new ways of operating and relating to communities.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could we, as members of this committee, have accessed to those recommendations and studies?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Those studies are all available. Normally, we send them to all the members of the committees. They are also available on the Web.

• 1620

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You also indicated in your comments that a major change should be made and that there had to be political accountability. You say that you want to become an agent of change and that you're going to move things along. Tell me a bit about what you can do to move things along and to provide for a better understanding of things.

Ms. Dyane Adam: The act is clear enough. It says that the Commissioner must make all efforts necessary to make sure that the act is fully respected by federal institutions, Parliament, and so forth. So the Commissioner can take all measures necessary and that could include legal proceedings, investigations that are at the heart of the special reports to the Governor in Council, special reports, annual reports, studies, research, media intervention, publications, communications, CD-Roms.

I intend to diversify my approach. What's most important when one wants to be an agent of change, is first to read the situation correctly and then intervene as relevantly as possible. When we talk about relevance, it doesn't necessarily mean that we always intervene the same way. So one intervenes in diverse ways. Sometimes you can be far more vigorous and in some cases it can be a lot nicer and even less affirmative.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is the Charter, the constitutional rights in clauses 16 to 23, and Part VII of the Official Languages Act whose clause 41, more specifically, does make problems for me, as you know, Madam. It creates problems for the francophone and anglophone communities. I admit that the act does impose an obligation upon the government and the departments.

You know the position of the Department of Justice concerning the interpretation of clause 41. We went to court recently and we got a decision in our favour and I've just found out that it will not be tested in court. I'm quite happy about that, but the government is going to have to adjust certain things because some things must be done.

You know clause 41 of the Official Languages Act. I can read it out, if you want:

41. The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

Justice Canada is a major department. Its interpretation of that clause of the act is different than that of the groups subject to the act. I'm talking about the communities. For some legal officers, clause 41 is the expression of a wishful thinking. It is declaratory, so they say. I think they're wrong. One can understand that other ministers, which consider Justice Canada as one of the key departments, might not be convinced that the Official Languages Act should be implemented. I think that's why some ground has been lost in the implementation of the Official Languages Act, at least at the federal level.

As far as I'm concerned, section 41 of the act is binding. I'd like to stress the word "binding". If you prefer, I could use the word imperative, which comes to the same thing. This is a section of the act which enables the federal government to use its spending power.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, quickly.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, two minutes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, 30 seconds.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is a section which gives the federal government spending power. It does not create new powers. It stipulates that the development of minorities can be promoted and funded. It stipulates that public money may be spent.

Ms. Adam, how do you interpret section 41?

Ms. Dyane Adam: You will be happy to know that I share your opinion. The Commission maintains that Part VII is binding or imperative, depending on the term you prefer to use. Indeed, in terms of action with respect to the Contraventions Act, this was the formal position adopted and defended by the Commission.

• 1625

If you don't have any objections, I would just like to say that in my opinion, one of the major breaks on the implementation of Part VII is indeed that the federal government has not reached a consensus on the actual scope of Part VII.

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

Mr. Plamondon.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is one important issue arising from your answer.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That is duly noted. Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given that we don't have much time, I would like to ask two brief questions of a practical nature on your report.

In your report, you look forward to the impact that the act will have on the transportation industry in Canada, given that Air Canada subsidiaries are now required to meet the linguistic requirements of the Official Languages Act. I would like to point out that this came about following a complaint lodged by the Association des gens de l'air du Québec, over the percentage of French-speaking pilots at Air Canada.

Now that Air Canada subsidiaries are subject to this act, what is the status of the two complaints lodged by the Association des gens de l'air du Québec against Air Canada?

Ms. Dyane Adam: As you have said, the basis of this complaint was the percentage of French-speaking and English-speaking pilots. In light of the fact that this issue is currently under investigation, I'm limited in what I can say about it. This investigation is ongoing.

In terms of Air Canada and the annual report, I would like to point out that what we are very happy about is not the numbers of pilots, but rather that the new act has clarified requirements for regional airlines. This act is not perfect, but it is a step forward in terms of what existed before.

In terms of your second question on the two complaints, we have made a lot of progress on this file, but I am prohibited from talking to you about its content. Normally, I refrain from making comments on the substance of a complaint before it is resolved and made public knowledge.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: All right. I would like to ask a second, more philosophical question.

Last month, it was reported in the newspapers that for the first time in over 20 years, we have the lowest percentage of bilingual deputy ministers. Cynics would say that deputy ministers govern the country while ministers strut around. The huge power wielded by deputy ministers is common knowledge.

In concluding your statement, you talked about your vision of bilingualism. You mentioned institutional culture. In your report, you talked about improving services in both official languages. You stated that culture underscored attitudes, behaviours and values. How do you think that this vision can be promoted by deputy ministers, when they themselves are not even bilingual or at the very least open to the other culture? The best way of sensitizing yourself to the other culture, is to speak both official languages, to be acquainted with both cultures and both languages.

What is your reaction to this issue which has emerged over the last 20 years? It is a phenomenon which came about and which was reported in the press about six weeks ago.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I would just like to qualify what was reported in the newspapers, because I believe that the statistics which were quoted were probably not quite exact. Having said that, it is true that currently, the number of French-speaking deputy ministers is not equivalent to the percentage of French-speaking Canadians.

• 1630

Mr. Plamondon, many are not aware of the fact that current policy does not require deputy ministers to be bilingual. EX-grade public servants are required to be bilingual, but as far as I know, deputy ministers are not required to speak both languages.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: As Official Languages Commissioner, would you like to see bilingual deputy ministers?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Of course. That would be in line with what I have said.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: With what you have said.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Indeed, many recommendations are being made to deputy ministers.

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

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back to the issue of Canada's capital. This is an issue which is of great interest to me, in light of the fact that I was a municipal councillor here for 20 years.

As Senator Gauthier mentioned, the issue here is one of linguistic duality and not bilingualism. In my view and in that of Senator Gauthier, bilingualism is the ability of an individual to converse in both official languages. For others, it can be institutional.

My Alliance colleague mentioned an old principle. He did not tell us what that principle was but what he was referring to in fact was where numbers warrant.

During the 20 years when I was a municipal councillor, when people came to see me about a poster, I never asked them whether there was a large francophone community in their area. If there are only one or two, they cannot have bilingual municipal posters. However, if you live in Orléans, you can have bilingual posters, and those who object to bilingual posters should move to Mr. Reid's riding. In his area francophones are having one language imposed on them, despite the fact that they live in a country with linguistic duality and two official languages, one which recognizes that people have the right to education and personal development in their own language.

When people came to the various committees, they had the right to express themselves in both official languages. When people were introducing themselves, we didn't ask them whether they lived on Cumberland Street or on... street. When the municipal police issues you a traffic violation in Orléans, you can have it in both official languages. However Mr. Laplante, who lives in Mr. Reid's riding and who is a member of a small minority language group will only be able to get his traffic violation in English because the majority prevails there.

The same is true for posters on buildings. Two weeks ago, I attended an event at Nepean Sportsplex. I am a member of the linguistic minority. About 5,000 people attended this event and, perhaps 50 of them were French-speaking. I haven't taken account of those who were unilingual francophones or unilingual anglophones. If we said that the word arena on the building should now be written with an accent on the e and with an English e, would that cause a problem? Are we talking about numbers or are we talking about the principle of recognizing linguistic duality? The issue is not to provide services for a minority which doesn't speak the other language. It is really an issue of accommodating the other francophone or anglophone community and of accommodating a student from Mr. Reid's riding, who is learning French and who, for reasons of personal development, would like to be exposed to both languages so that when he becomes a professional, he will be professional in all senses of the word and will be able to talk about international trade and international issues in the other language. Consequently, he will be equipped to take his rightful place in the global village, and look beyond his own borders, and not have a parochial attitude.

• 1635

In your opinion, Ms. Adam, should the Official Languages Act only be applied where numbers warrant or should it be implemented where linguistic duality is recognized? Don't you think that it's not so much a matter of accommodating those who are not skilled in the language of the majority, but rather of allowing people in a bilingual country and in the capital of a bilingual country to feel comfortable when French speakers often are more skilful than anglophones?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Madam Commissioner, imagine that you are in Question Period in the House. You have 35 seconds to answer.

Ms. Dyane Adam: By way of answer, I would like to say that in my opinion you have to look at the human and social issue as being linked to the legislative plan. In the national capital, municipal councillors have to decide what type of city they want to have, and legislation will reflect their decision. Of course, they can limit or restrict services which they see as superfluous. If they have decided to have a bilingual capital in a bilingual country they will undoubtedly consider it important to give the city a bilingual face. Consequently, signs will be in both languages throughout the city, because people move around and they don't always live in the same district.

As soon as agreement is reached on the principles, on the values and on the human and social aspect, issues of this type are resolved because people are reasonable. Often, people who get bogged down in details have forgotten the fundamental issue. I would like to focus their attention on the substantive issue.

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

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome you into this committee. I know that we only have seven minutes... Five minutes! The clock is ticking. The more it ticks, the less time we have. The nearer you get to bilingual French-speaking areas, the tighter things get. Well, let's leave it at that.

I'm going to ask some brief questions on issues that you are undoubtedly aware of. The money given to Nova Scotia for French-language education was allocated by the government to other areas last year. The government itself admitted as much. Have you monitored that? As for this year, the government does not want to compromise itself and come out and say that they're going to use this money elsewhere.

I don't know if you completely understand my question. It would appear that they only need $4.1 million. Given the fact that they will receive $4.5 million, what do they intend to do with the $402,000 which should be given over to serving the French-speaking community and not to other areas?

My second question deals with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in New Brunswick. In your report, you mentioned New Brunswick, but in your recommendations, you only refer to Manitoba and not to New Brunswick. I'd like to know why.

I would like to ask another question on customer services offered by Air Canada at the airport in Canada's capital. When you have been waiting to be served for half an hour only to be told by the person at the counter that he does not speak French, you would be unwilling to go and stand in another line for half an hour. This is what I experienced at the Air Canada a little over a month ago. Sometimes you have to deal with a person who doesn't speak French.

Those brief comments on Ottawa remind me of Moncton. I like the French-speaking community in Moncton. My university is a francophone university. The Dr.-Georges-L.-Dumont regional hospital is also a French-speaking facility. However, in Moncton people don't like to say that they are French speakers, even if the francophone summit was held there. It's to be hoped that Ottawa will move more quickly to represent our country.

My last question deals with Human Resources Development and on this point I have a story to tell. I know that I only have five minutes, but I would hope that the chair will be a little bit patient because the story deals with a big problem. I will try to deal with it as quickly as possible.

As I had a problem, I called Human Resources Development at their 1-800 number. I would expect that with today's technology, I would be told to press 1 for service in English and 2 for service in French. I realized that there was not an option 1 or 2. I was answered in English and connected to someone in Chatham, Ontario where the service is available in English only.

When I asked to be served in French, I was told of another phone number in Toronto, where I was served in English again. At that point I told them that I was quite upset. A young lady apologized the next day saying that it was not easy for them; there are 350 employees at Human Resources Development and only five of them speak French. Finally, I ended up in Quebec to discuss a New Brunswick problem.

At any rate, I hope that the chair would have sufficient patience to give you the time to answer all these little questions which I asked, because I think that they are truly important for all Canadians.

Thank you.

• 1640

Ms. Dyane Adam: Mr. Godin, I believe that that is both a comment and a question. We do agree on that I believe?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No.

Ms. Dyane Adam: No?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Very well. Then you'll have to help me.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Come sit over here and then I'll go answer the questions.

Ms. Dyane Adam: As far as Nova Scotia, you asked me whether we did a follow-up as to the use of funding destined to French-language education. It is not up to the Commission to do this type of follow-up. That is up to Heritage Canada. And I admit that I have no idea what stage they are at.

As to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have indicated difficulties, both in Manitoba and in New Brunswick, particularly in New Brunswick, as to how positions are designated. It is mentioned elsewhere in the annual report. Where exactly? I could give you that answer if my colleagues would help me.

We could say that the final report was tabled and given to complainants and to the RCMP, as regards the situation in New Brunswick. The follow-up report, which is final, states that the RCMP did not implement any of the recommendations made by the Commission about a year ago.

Mr. Yvon Godin: And furthermore, they aren't in agreement with you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Would you not agree...

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, no. The RCMP does not agree with you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I have no idea. I have not received a response.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That is what was stated last week.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Very well. Then that's where we're at.

As to customer service at Air Canada, I have the answer.

As to New Brunswick, it is mentioned on page 56 and on page 95 of the annual report.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Air Canada is to appear before the committee in May.

Ms. Dyane Adam: To get back to Air Canada, as regards customer service and the single window, what you have experienced and what you indicate, is one of the fundamental problems which have been identified during the reorganization of their services. Since there is a single window, it is a matter of chance whether you deal with a bilingual person or a unilingual person. At that point, there is an infringement of linguistic rights, since you do not have the right to an equivalent level of service. That does not respect linguistic rights.

As to the question about Ottawa, I think that you had answered yes, but...

Mr. Yvon Godin: I will grant you that. I will make this concession.

Ms. Dyane Adam: As to Human Resources Development, I have the impression that could constitute a complaint, could it not?

Mr. Yvon Godin: And I am following that up.

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

Senator Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know that I don't usually make a speech instead of a question, but on this occasion, I will make a bit of a speech before asking my question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That will have to come out of the five minutes that you are granted.

[English]

Senator Joan Fraser: Madam Adam, I would not want you or anyone else to think that only francophones care about the status of official languages in the capital of Canada. I am an anglophone, and I do not feel at home in the capital of my country unless it gives full equal status to both of this country's official languages, both in law and in practice. I think that goes to the heart of what the country is about. Ottawa is not a city like others—it is the capital of Canada. That is at the heart of Ottawa's identity.

[Translation]

Voilà.

My question deals with municipal amalgamation.

[English]

You mention in the annual report that you have been paying attention to the cases of municipal mergers, both in Ontario and Quebec. I am not familiar with the cases in Ontario, although I know they are important. I'm a little more familiar with the cases in Quebec, and I'm aware that despite the initial assurances from the Government of Quebec that all would be for the best of all possible worlds for everybody, including anglophones, still, later developments cast some doubt on the degree to which anglophones would find those assurances actually put into practice.

• 1645

So are you, as commissioner, prepared to do sustained examinations in both provinces of how this situation works out in practice, and to report to Parliament and to the public on a timely and regular basis about problems as you see them arising?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm following the municipal mergers, in Ontario mostly. Generally speaking I'd say that right now, in cities such as Ottawa and Sudbury, which has recently passed a bilingual policy, the populations seem satisfied with what they have.

With respect to Quebec, we're following the situation and I have intervened at different levels—especially in the transition boards. I sent letters, met with the president of the transition board in Montreal as well as Mrs. Harel's office. I've also asked to meet with the transition board of Sherbrooke.

We are following what has been put forward in front of the court, the legal recourse. I think the hearing is now set for May. My legal advisers are following that case very closely. At an appropriate time, I'm ready to provide this committee with information on this situation or our analysis of it.

Senator Joan Fraser: May I just suggest that an appropriate time would be sooner rather than later?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Okay.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you, monsieur le président.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You still have time.

Senator Joan Fraser: I don't know if you have the documents with you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I do. But I would rather prepare for that, because I was not expecting to have to give you a full assessment of the situation. I would rather come back.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I will start with a comment, since I have long said that the court at a certain point and time will have to state that section 41 is binding and a requirement in law. That is being done. I find it quite amazing that the Department of Justice does not launch an appeal. That proves that the matter is settled.

You fought for this. I congratulate you. As far as I am concerned, it is a remarkable day for constitutional law. My colleague Senator Gauthier spoke of spending power. Don't forget that is a matter of federal jurisdiction. The fact that section 41 is binding means that a court may one day say: It is imperative, you must use your spending power; not only may you do so, but you must do so in law. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it's quite extraordinary.

My question deals with the bilingual capital. From a constitutional and federal point of view, Canada is a bilingual country. That is clear-cut. In my opinion, the capital of a bilingual country must be bilingual. I don't see why we would make a distinction between the top of the hill and the bottom, between a street on the right hand side or a street on the left hand side, or the left bank or the right bank. As far as I am concerned, it's constitutionally impossible. Never, ever would the Supreme Court make such a decision. We always forget—and that perhaps answers Mr. Bellemare's question, when he went along those lines—that the languages are bilingual. You have to remember that always.

• 1650

What is extraordinary in the Official Languages Act, is that the two languages were given equal importance in Canada. Obviously, section 23 mentions where numbers warrant but that is a matter of educational rights. It is not the fundamental principle of bilingualism. The principle of bilingualism is that the two languages are equal. So what is your opinion on the plan for a bilingual capital? In my view, I feel that a bilingual country must have a federal capital that is also bilingual.

Secondly, it is true that municipalities are a matter of provincial jurisdiction, but there is a section in the Constitution which states that the capital of Canada was chosen by the Queen or by Parliament, and so on. We are carrying out a study on this issue and I believe that we will come to the conclusion that the federal government does have the right to state its opinion on this issue.

As Official Languages Commissioner, have you done a detailed study into this? At any rate, I am doing so. I don't think that we should let this opportunity go by, namely the opportunity to have a bilingual capital in a bilingual country. It is obvious. It is said that municipalities are a matter of provincial jurisdiction, well, yes, it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, but Ottawa is not just any city. It is the capital. That is different.

We have 10 provincial capitals and there is legislation to that effect. Why could we not also legislate? I am not dealing with municipal issues, but with the bilingual face of the capital of a bilingual country. Why could we not do so? That's perhaps a battle that would have to be launched.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Before answering the question regarding the capital, I am afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. You stated that you were very happy to see that in the last decision dealing with the Contraventions Act, the judge had settled the issue of the binding or mandatory nature of the provision. That is not the case. Let us say that the Commission was right on several points in that case, but the judge did not deal with Part VII. He simply stated, which is already a great deal, that the federal government could not remove itself from its obligations by delegating its responsibilities to third parties or to other levels of government, and he mentioned section 16 of the Constitution.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Section 16?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, but he did not really go as far as you believe. I just wanted to clarify that. It is not a decision which truly clarifies the scope of Part VII of the act.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: But is Part VII of the act binding or not? As far as I am concerned, I feel that section 41 is binding.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I do too, but the judge...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The judge did not say it?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Justice Blais did not...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Then, why do they mention...

Ms. Dyane Adam: He handed down a decision on other important aspects. We are speaking of the Contraventions Act. The federal government, in transferring responsibilities to the provincial level, in this case, did not ensure that the province or the municipality which was responsible for applying federal legislation do so in a way that respects linguistic rights. The justice stated that the federal government cannot withdraw from its obligations by handing them off to other levels of government.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: If the federal government is obliged, at law, to respect bilingualism when it delegates powers to a lower order of government, then that lower order of government is obligated to respect bilingualism.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Very well. That's obvious.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Well, it wasn't obvious. We went to court against Justice Canada to get a decision on this issue.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It was not obvious, but I think I would have thought that it was obvious from the beginning.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I am not a lawyer, sir.

• 1655

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Madam Commissioner, may I make a suggestion? Would it be possible for your staff to provide us with a summary of the court's decision?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, and even an interpretation of it.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: If the court did not go as far as that, we have to continue pushing the issue forward. In my opinion we'll have to continue doing so until we have won. A bilingual country must have a bilingual capital.

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

Senator Bacon.

Senator Lise Bacon (De la Durantaye, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Commissioner, I'd like to come back to your report since time is short. At pages 79 and 80 of your report, you are making a very sad statement regarding official language communities in a minority situation and you are also saying that a certain inertia rules regarding the recourse they have in several areas of the country. In order to alleviate this problem, you mentioned a strategy of ads to be published in newspapers.

Could you please elaborate on that?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Let me find the right page in the document.

Senator Lise Bacon: It's at pages 79 and 80, where you deal with the media and the minority communities which are not being properly served. You mentioned a very sad conclusion on page 80.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Under the law, our federal institutions must publish ads in both languages. Of course, in some provinces, that would be the minority newspapers. Several complaints that were received deal with difficulties with this part of the legislation. We are talking about repeated cases where the legislation is not being respected, and you are asking me what strategies we will take to correct the situation.

At present, we are conducting a study to examine the problem in depth. We must understand that, from the standpoint of the Commissioner's office, a minority community needs the tools to foster its own development, and must have access to media that reflects its own circumstances and talks about it. This is fundamental to the community's success. One way of financing those newspapers is advertising.

When our federal institutions violate the act, there is an indirect impact on those communities' success, because they do not support the communities' institutions. We will look at the study.

Gilbert, when is the study slated for publication?

Mr. Gilbert Langelier (Director, Special Investigations Division, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Towards the end of the calendar year.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Before the end of 2001.

Senator Lise Bacon: On another topic, I would refer you to pages 36 and 37 of your report. It states that close to half the pupils eligible for minority language instruction under the Charter do not attend French schools. Have you determined why parents decide not to send their children to minority-language schools? How do you believe you can persuade parents to enrol their children in French-language schools?

Ms. Dyane Adam: This question might require a long answer, but I will try to be brief.

We have carried out two studies on the implementation of section 23, including the issue of eligibility of minority language education. The first study dealt with parental motivation. Some of the reasons for which parents enrol or do not enrol their children in French-language schools are extremely pragmatic, such as how far the school is from their home. Of course, they also consider what programs the school has available. In the higher grades, more children and parents are looking for a diversified curriculum. However, we know full well that minority schools have a smaller number of students, and therefore a more restricted course selection. That is a factor. There are other factors as well, such as how the family feels about French, a sense of belonging and a sense of pride. Another factor is whether the family is mixed, whether it is homogenously francophone or exogamous. This is a determining factor as well, because parents often want to alternate, or at least have their children receive one part of their education in the French system and the other part of their education in the English system.

• 1700

However, to my mind there is one key factor we will have to study closely. In some of our provinces, French-school management and school boards have been in place only for a very few years. In some cases, we cannot even talk about a consolidated school system, because we are still at the implementation stage. Since the schools in question were often established as budgets were being cut, they have fewer resources and this is a major problem.

The minority school system has not yet matured. It has not yet reached cruising speed. In some provinces, only 10% of eligible students are enrolled. This reflects how immature the system is.

How can we arrive at some remedial plan to increase attendance in minority schools? The second study was tailored specifically to answer that question, and was carried out by Ms. Martel, the researcher. I will not provide too much detail because there is indeed a lot, but I would be very happy to talk to you about it if you wish.

Senator Lise Bacon: Do you believe that the principle you mention on page 36, concerning the education of minority children in French, is genuinely a condition for ensuring the vitality of Canada's linguistic duality?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Undoubtedly.

Senator Lise Bacon: There is no doubt at all.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The next speaker is Mr. Rahim Jaffer, but he has advised me that he has ceded his time to Mr. Reid.

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you. I'd like to return to the discussion of the city of Ottawa and its status, whether it will become a bilingual city or not. I think some of the observations that were made earlier need to be commented upon.

As Senator Fraser observed, Ottawa is not a city like the others. I think we have to be careful when we say that, that we don't wind up saying therefore, as a consequence of that, the rights of those who reside in Ottawa—and there are 700,000 people who reside here—are not the same as those of other Canadians, and particularly that unilingual residents of this city are not shut out because we've made a decision that it's not a city like the others.

I do think it's essential that we emphasize that there has to be a reasonable balance struck between the rights of the minority community in the new mega-city and the rights of those who are unilingual and who simply will not be able to find employment if we go overboard under the new city.

There are 440,000 people in this city—that's an absolute majority—who are unilingual. Of those, it deserves mentioning that 97.6% are English speakers. So if one goes overboard, one risks the danger of freezing out a great number of people.

It seems to me there's a reasonable and rational solution to this. I look and I see that there are a number of services that can be provided city-wide without ignoring the geographical distinctions that exist in this city.

Of those, 911 service is probably the most important, access to telephone or web-based services of all sorts, and, at a more minor level but one that is significant, the right to get your parking tickets, if you get parking tickets, in both languages—that sort of thing.

But at the same time, if we make the assumption that all services everywhere must be provided by local service providers in both languages, we run the risk of depriving people of the right to work in a work environment that reflects the surrounding community. That's just not acceptable for people who were, for example, municipal employees of the City of Kanata or the City of West Carleton, or of what was formerly Rideau Township, who have worked for years in one language, served a community, and there has been no need to work differently. Then they find, because of some form of amalgamation, something that's utterly beyond their control; everything's changed in their work environment. There needs to be protection for those people, and that is a real concern.

• 1705

It seems to me that there's still justice in saying, as André Laurendeau and Davidson Dunton did years ago, that there should not be any designation of jobs as bilingual imperative unless bilingualism defines the job. We should always work as much as possible to leave as many positions open to those who are unilingual, simply to reflect the fact that the community contains so many people who are, and they should have the right to rise as far as possible in the civil service of the city with that being respected.

Moreover, it seems to me that one of the things I hear all the time from constituents, and it has to be reflected in any policy in Ottawa, is the fact that when there is a genuine need for a job to be filled by someone who is bilingual, the training is simply not available. This is true in the federal government. The training is simply not available as it should be. People are shut out because they simply don't have the opportunity to put in all the hours, to take the time off work, to get that second-language training. And in some cases they're frozen out simply because they're given a test that judges their linguistic ability to be insufficient for them even to get training. We've seen this happen at the federal level. We simply can't allow it to happen at the municipal level.

I'm hoping you'll be able to convey some of that when you are, I believe, intervening later on this week or next week in front of a committee of the City of Ottawa.

Ms. Dyane Adam: It's not decided if I will intervene, but if I did I think I would talk about myths, Mr. Reid, with respect to bilingualism and official bilingualism, because while a number of your assertions I think may be legitimate preoccupations, there are also concerns or fears of people who have a certain understanding that bilingualism means bilingualism wall to wall. They believe that if there is official bilingualism in the city everyone will need to be bilingual and that it's expensive. I do think this has been grossly exaggerated.

I think the three myths that need to be addressed, and I will not address them today, are the same as what we find with respect to federal bilingualism or federal official language policy. One is that it's expensive; it's overly expensive. Another is that unilinguals have no chance or are shut out of the workforce. The statistics do not support that. And another is that people will lose their job.

Then there is the question of training. To have a second language is a skill. It has to be learned. It has to be practised. It has to be used. It means people have to work at it. So to become bilingual is a decision that someone has to make. We see that in the federal government we have right now about 31% that are designated bilingual. So 69% of the positions are not designated. I invite you to look at the level of bilingualism required. It's not what we would call perfect bilingualism or really even functional. It's more at the level of understanding. Depending on the needs of the population and what would be established, you would find that this would be accessible to many people and that no one would really be left out. There are enough jobs that are unilingual. That's how I would respond.

• 1710

Mr. Scott Reid: But the—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'm sorry, we've run out of time. I've gone considerably beyond your time, Mr. Reid.

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier, a brief comment, please.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you. I have a number of questions, but I will ask only one. Mr. Chairman, I hope we will come back to the estimates, which are before us until May 31, because we have not yet looked at them. We have barely a month to examine the estimates, and I hope we will get that done.

Commissioner, my question is on Justice Canada. Mr. Beaudoin, you were quite right in saying that Justice Blais, in his report, did not refer to section 41. He said that federal institutions had contravened the Official Languages Act and the Charter. He did not mention section 41, and in fact was careful not to do so. I have already received the Commissioner's support regarding section 41. As lawyers would say, it is mandatory, or binding.

Commissioner, people have been interpreting the Official Languages Act since 1988. In 1988, some 13 or 14 years ago, it was reviewed by Parliament. Since then, Justice Canada has been implying that section 41 is a declaratory provision. I am completely fed up with that. I have a question for you, Commissioner. Would you agree to support this committee if it passed a resolution asking Cabinet to refer section 41 in order to obtain a clear and accurate definition of it? Is it declaratory or binding? If the committee asked for your support, would you be prepared to give it?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Of course. I am not very familiar with the legal ins and outs of this, but in my view the fact that we have failed to reach consensus within the federal government on the real scope of section 41 is acting as a major barrier to its implementation. Clarification can therefore only help us move forward in implementing section 41, which is fundamental to the development of official language communities.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I have a second question, which is as simple as the first. In your book, you talk about education. I am going to talk about training.

Ontario is the only Canadian province that has not signed an agreement on manpower training with Human Resources Development. Ontario said that it would not sign an agreement, and as a result francophones in Ontario do not at present have access to manpower training programs in post-secondary educational institutions, or colleges. The colleges cannot be asked to finance manpower training programs, since the federal government is no longer financing the colleges, but individuals. Pursuant to the amendment made several years ago, individuals now have to decide where they will obtain vocational training.

Could you give us some help with Ontario? Could you perhaps speak to Ms. Stewart, the Human Resources Development Minister, so that we can reach some agreement and so that the federal government can play an appropriate role in the promotion, protection and development of languages and communities, and afford Ontario francophones access to vocational training programs in the post-secondary institutions? We do not have that many—only one in Ottawa, the Cité collégiale. There is no college in Alfred, and none in the north or the south. To my mind, it is time we did this.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Please keep your answer brief.

Ms. Dyane Adam: With respect to the agreement, in my opinion Justice Blais' decision on violations of the Official Languages Act clearly defines the obligations of the federal government once the agreement is signed. We hope the federal government will sign the agreement. Obviously, there are two parties to any agreement. Why exactly has the agreement not been signed? I do not know, but I could of course... It would be an excellent file for Mr. Dion to deal with in his capacity as minister responsible for official languages.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Colleagues, two more people have asked to speak. I expect the bells to start ringing at any moment, so I will allow a couple of short interventions. Then I have a few very quick interventions for a minute, though not questions. I'd love to ask questions. I have refrained.

• 1715

[Translation]

Senator Beaudoin, then Mr. Bellemare and then we will conclude.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I believe it would be possible for the federal government to refer the following question to the Supreme Court: is section 41 mandatory and binding, or is it purely declaratory? The government can do that. Now I should tell you that governments generally tend to wait until there is a specific case before the courts and a litigant raises the question. Unfortunately, the question has not yet been raised. I hope it will be raised in the near future, because if we could reach some conclusion in the courts, the conclusion that section 41 is binding, that decision would give the Official Languages Act considerably more force.

Perhaps I'm becoming too enthusiastic too quickly, we are not there yet. But as you know, the Constitution evolves all the time.

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

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Chairman, according to the 1996 statistics, if my memory serves me well, 27,000 people in the riding of Lanark—Carleton considered themselves bilingual. We know that 4,000 people were unilingual francophones, so that means at least 23,000 anglophones spoke French.

I must congratulate Mr. Reid on how he communicates in French. I also want to take the opportunity to sincerely thank Mr. Reid for his generosity to those who use 911, and those who have tickets.

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

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to ask Ms. Adam to set out a basic principle for us. Our employees—regardless of whom they work for—are they there for themselves, or to serve the entire community, in the case of a municipality?

Ms. Dyane Adam: In my field, we would call that a loaded question. Obviously, we all work with a view to achieving the organization's objectives, regardless of what they are. That is a very well targeted question.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In fairness, Mr. Reid, would you care to have one minute for a question?

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. It's not to Mr. Bellemare. It's to the commissioner. Many previous commissioners have raised the matter that there is an insufficient quantity of federally funded language training available. It was that to which I was referring. I'm just worried that the same thing will repeat itself in Ottawa. You're quite right that it's wonderful to have people who speak both languages. It does take time. The estimate that was put out by, I think, Treasury Board about a decade ago was about 1,600 hours. That's about 10 months of full-time work for the average person to get to an adequate level. That's what worries me. I wonder if you can address that.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think you're right when you say that with the cutbacks and everything, Treasury Board did a study and found that we do not have sufficient resources right now to sustain the need for training in the federal apparatus. So there are pressures there. You're quite right that we need to relook at that and at ways of training. The new technology brings different ways, and it may reduce some of the cost, at least for the written mastery of the language.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you.

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

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

[English]

Colleagues, tomorrow morning you will be receiving....

Do you have a question, Senator?

Senator Joan Fraser: After you've finished.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You should be receiving in your office through e-mail the confidential draft report of our deliberations on CPAC. That is the report we will be considering in camera tomorrow afternoon. So you should be getting a first draft of that electronically in your offices tomorrow morning.

• 1720

I've taken considerable notes from this meeting, and I've noted that we may have further issues to deal with: language training, which has been suggested; the matter of the justice department in section 41; Air Canada, which we will be dealing with; the RCMP,

[Translation]

the RCMP; language training in Ontario.

[English]

So there are a number of issues. I remind committee members that any time you wish to see that something be dealt with, send it in to either of the co-chairs. We will be gathering the steering committee some time soon to look beyond May.

Madam Commissioner, you've set the table rather well, and it's rather full too. You've very clearly demonstrated that there are shortfalls in the application of the Official Languages Act. We thank you for doing that. You've also given us ways that we can correct some of these shortfalls. You've also pointed out the affirmation of the government's will to do so. It is the job, as you have ably pointed out in section 5.1 of your report, of this committee to do that.

On my colleagues' behalf, I pledge you our support in trying to see to the full implementation of the act.

I believe House of Commons members have votes in about five to ten minutes. I see two questions. I'll deal with them expeditiously. Senator.

[Translation]

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is on tomorrow afternoon's meeting.

[English]

Unfortunately, this is not the first time this committee has scheduled an extra meeting for Wednesday afternoon. Wednesday afternoon is a time of almost insuperable difficulty for senators. It is the most intensive committee day we have. I have two scheduled committee meetings tomorrow afternoon. I know that Senator Beaudoin has a committee meeting precisely when this committee has scheduled a meeting. I would be willing to bet that Senator Bacon has a meeting tomorrow afternoon at some point.

While I understand the difficulty of scheduling supplementary meetings, Wednesday afternoon doesn't do it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Correct me, colleagues, if I'm wrong, but this committee has come to an agreement that we must have two meetings a week in order to function properly. If Wednesday afternoon is a problem, then we could revisit that. But the notion of having only one meeting a week is something that this committee—it's my sense anyway—is not supporting. It wishes to have two meetings a week in order to tackle the rather formidable amount of work we have.

We could revisit the Wednesday afternoon time slot, and we'll do that through the steering committee.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, the witness has established that there were 12 priorities, in her opinion, that we had to look at as a committee. I want those priorities to be set now. This lady has an agenda to keep track of, I have one, and so do other members of this committee. If we don't know when we're going to meet with her, I think it's wrong. I think we should have it set now.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, the business of the committee is set by the steering committee. I am in the hands of the steering committee and the full committee. That is how we will keep setting the business of the committee.

The meeting is adjourned.