37-1
37th Parliament,
1st Session
(January 29, 2001 - September 16, 2002)
Select a different session
Proceedings of the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Formerly: The Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders
Issue 7 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 16, 2001 The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:05 p.m. to consider the Motion of the Honourable Senator Gauthier, as amended (Senate Committee on Official Languages). Senator Terry Stratton (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair. [English] The Deputy Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, I call the committee to order specifically to deal with Senator Gauthier's issue on Official Languages. We have with us today the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dyane Adam. Madam, please introduce your officials and proceed with any opening statement that you may have, after which we will turn the floor over to the senators present to ask questions. Ms Dyane Adam, Commissioner of Official Languages: I should like to start by presenting my Director General of Policy and Communication, Mr. Gérard Finn, legal counsel Laura Snowball, and Director General of Investigations Branch, Mr. Michel Robichaud. It is a pleasure to come here today. [Translation] Honourable senators, I always look forward to appearing here and gaining more experience in parliamentary committees. I have held the position of Commissioner of Official Languages for nearly two years. You all know that we have not had many opportunities to meet because of the last election, which put a halt to the normal activities of the two Houses for a few months, giving us fewer opportunities to meet. Nevertheless, I hope to be meeting with you more often in the months that lie ahead, which will allow me to benefit from your expertise in order to strengthen our strategic intervention. [English] For nearly two years now I have been fortunate to hold a position that allows me to meet hundreds of Canadians from all walks of life, including, of course, members of the official language minority communities. I hear about a lot of pride in their history and rich heritage. I also hear of fears about the future of their communities and also that their concerns are not always heard in political circles. The members of the Senate nevertheless play an essential and unique role in defending and promoting the rights of official language minority communities, as Senator Gauthier has demonstrated throughout his career. There are no doubt many reasons for this, but I will focus on two primary reasons. First is the fact that, minority official language communities are well represented in the Senate, notably as a result of the regional representation rule. Second, not being subject to electoral constraints, the Senate can also study matters relating to official languages with greater latitude and more distance than can the House of Commons. These, I believe, are the two reasons that lead me to think that the House of Commons derives great benefit from your expertise and wisdom in promoting the official languages cause. [Translation] By speaking directly to your colleagues in the House of Commons and joining them in their work, you strengthen the voice of official language minorities, thereby making the decision-making process more effective. All in all, a joint committee has the potential for being more effective in implementing the Official Languages Act because it has greater prestige and more weight compared to separate House of Commons and Senate committees. You can therefore see that I believe in the relevance of the Joint Committee on Official Languages providing your relationship with the other parliamentary chamber is effective and constructive. Regardless of whether or not you decide to continue the work of the Joint Committee, I do feel that you have a crucial role to play in implementing the Official Languages Act and in ensuring that there is some follow-up to my various reports. There is no need to remind you of the significant contribution made by official language minority communities in terms of the identity of our country, nor to remind you that the vision of Canada, which is shared by the vast majority of Canadians, is consecrated by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and the Official Languages Act, which represents one of the precious legacies that Pierre Elliott Trudeau has left us. This unique model of linguistic duality and this modern vision of Canada depend a great deal of the vitality of our official language communities. [English] My role as Commissioner of Official Languages is not limited to ensuring that the Official Languages Act is merely respected by the institutions in question. As an agent of change, I also intend to promote the values underlying this vision of our country. This is one of the key priorities of my mandate. In view of my rather limited resources, I rely tremendously on your influence and support, regardless of your decision on the continuation of the work of the joint committee. [Translation] Senator Joyal raised a good point when he recently underscored how important cooperation is between the Joint Committee and the Office of the Commissioner Official Languages. You will agree with me that it is important to be able to work together and pool our thoughts so that we can further the official languages file as provided for in section 88 of the act. And yet there is nothing exceptional about this relationship, if you compare it to that of the Auditor General and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. The Auditor relies on a parliamentary liaison group composed of four people who act as a link between the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee and the Senate National Finance Committee. This team also tries to promote certain Auditor General files with other parliamentary committees and organizes individual meetings with the members of Parliament in order to meet their needs. This is a cooperative model that is feasible. I hope to be able to discuss this issue with all members of the joint committee as well as the members of this committee. Like the Auditor General, I am an agent of Parliament, at arm's length from the government, and like the Auditor General, it is important that I be able to rely on an effective committee, one with whom I can work harmoniously. [English] In conclusion, regardless of your decision on the future of the joint committee, the language rights of all Canadians and the full implementation of the Official Languages Act must be at the heart of your deliberations and your decisions. In either case, I hope to be able to pool our resources to a greater extent in order to develop a concerted and planned approach. This approach seems necessary in order to effectively support the development of official language communities;to promote a fundamentally Canadian vision; and to attain linguistic duality. The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I believe I should go to Senator Gauthier first because it is, after all, something near and dear to his heart. Senator Gauthier, would you like to proceed? [Translation] Senator Gauthier: The act is quite clear. Section 88 stipulates that there can be both a Senate and a House committee, as well as a joint committee. I am trying to convince senators that in addition to our legislative and regional roles, we have a duty to protect minorities, and in this particular instance, linguistic minorities. That is why we should have our own committee. I was a member of the Official Languages Committee before it was a joint committee. In 1979, it was a special committee. In 1979, Joe Clark agreed to create a joint committee. We wanted to broaden the mandate of the committee so that it would be less partisan. This worked very well for a few years. In 1980, Mr. Trudeau agreed to the current structure of the committee. History tells us what happened thereafter. In 1980, we were talking about the Constitution. Then interest slacked off. In 1982, we voted on a new Charter, and then the act was reviewed by officials in 1988. The committee did not get involved in the file until the end. In 1988, I was told to be patient and to wait until the act took off. That is all well and good, but 13 years have already gone by. Ms Adam, the parliamentary committee relies totally on your annual report, which gives us an overview of the linguistic situation in the country. I was very frustrated to know that the committee never met with Mr. Goldbloom, you predecessor, on a regular basis, as is done in committees where the Auditor General of Canada appears, as mentioned by Mr. Desautels. I chaired the Public Accounts Committee. It worked well because there was co-operation between the parliamentarians and the Auditor General. I want us to be able to cooperate, I want Commissioner of Official Languages to be abreast of everything that is going on, but want parliamentarians to be able to discuss these things with you. Can you provide us with any statistics as to the number of joint committee meetings you have attended as the Commissioner, over the past five years? How many times has the Joint Committee examined the annual report? Ms Adam: I will begin with my mandate. I tabled one annual report and other reports as well, such as the assessments and priorities. We have had only one discussion. Because of the elections, the last report for 1999 was not discussed. As for Mr. Goldbloom's mandate, he appeared 22 times during the course of his mandate. According to our statistics, he appeared every year. At least one meeting was dedicated to the study of the report. In 1994, for example, two meetings were spent on the report. In 1996, two meetings were set aside to study the report as well. Generally speaking, the Joint Committee on Official Languages spent one or two meetings per year studying the commissioner's annual report. These are the official statistics. I do not know if they match yours. Senator Gauthier: I never ask a question if I do not already have the answer. I asked the Library of Parliament Research Branch the same question. I was told that Mr. Goldbloom had discussed his report with parliamentarians, when he appeared before the committee in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. He did not appear before the committee in 1999 because he did not table a report. You replaced him, Ms Adam. Is that correct? Ms Adam: Yes, that is right. Senator Gauthier: The committee held other meetings on different issues. There have been six meetings this year and we have focussed on CPAC. We examined an issue that was not the most important one in your report, but it was important for House of Commons parliamentarians. It was a hot issue because a complaint had been filed by a citizen in eastern Canada about some House of Commons parliamentary programs, which have not been broadcast by CPAC in both official languages. We spent five meetings on this issue. We recently tabled a report on this issue in both the House of Commons and the Senate. It is frustrating to know that the annual report produced by the Joint Committee on Official Languages is always put on the shelf where it collects dust. The Auditor General's report is given serious consideration by the House committee. In the Senate, the Standing Senate Committee on Finances, chaired by Senator Murray, studies the report. Are you satisfied with the way that Parliament is studying your recommendations or your report? You have come before this committee once to defend your report. Ms Adam: Just once. Senator Gauthier: Have parliamentarians been proactive in this area? Yes or no? Ms Adam: It is difficult for me to answer this question because you are asking me to assess the performance of my bosses. That being said, I would really like to see - and I have pointed this out in my presentation Senator Gauthier - close cooperation between the Joint Committee or any other committee that Parliament decides to create to monitor the evolution and implementation of official languages. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is working to resolve several issues. We only have the power to make recommendations. However, this power is strengthened when the parliamentarians examine the recommendations and do the necessary follow-up work with the federal institutions or communities. In my opinion, the Commissioner and her team will have a much bigger impact if this is done. In defence of the Office of the Commissioner, I would like to point out that if cooperation has suffered, you must realize that the Office has, like many federal institutions, had to deal with significant budget cutbacks. Mr. Goldbloom had the disagreeable task of managing these cutbacks. The entire parliamentary liaison infrastructure that existed within the office was more or less eliminated. That may provide a partial explanation for the lack of close co-operation. I am examining this question and I see that the Senate wants to keep a closer and more vigilant eye on the files and recommendations of both the Office of the Commissioner and the Commissioner. We should request additional votes in order to build the infrastructure we need to fulfil this role properly. Senator Gauthier: Ms Adam, I do not want to embarrass you in front of your parliamentary friends. Nevertheless, you were not timid about saying what you thought to the public in general. The press reported that you had been quite critical, which surprised me somewhat. It appears that you said that the government was insensitive, that Parliament was not doing what it was supposed to do and that it did not look after official language matters. I can recite a series of statements that you made which show how frustrated you are with Parliament's inertia in the matter of official languages. Am I mistaken? Ms Adam: No, Senator Gauthier, you are not mistaken. It was said that I was at times very severe, at times even brutal. I had to "tell it like it is." If the agent of Parliament doesn't do it, nobody else will. We are well protected. Senator Gauthier, you want me to get my feet wet. I will. This is not difficult for me, it comes quite naturally. In order to fulfil my mandate, I think it is very important to have a committee that follows the files and work of the Office of the Commissioner very closely, a committee that really examines the issues carefully and even criticizes us, asks good questions, challenges the Commissioner and her team. Yes, I would like the committee that deals with official language issues to be more demanding, more involved and to get its teeth into the file with some passion, the way I do. Yes, I would like a very committed committee. Senator Comeau: When I was a member of Parliament, I was a member of the Joint Committee on Official Languages on two occasions. I really appreciated working with people who are not afraid to show us how to do the work; such as Senators Gauthier, Murray, Simard and others, who tried to show us how the committee should operate. When I arrived in the Senate, I returned to this committee and, at the beginning, the committee worked quite well. I even accepted to be joint chair. A short time thereafter, I asked to be taken off the committee because it wasn't working and, to some extent, it was doing harm. I come from a community in Nova Scotia where communities are being assimilated and anglicized at an alarming rate. We are witnessing the disappearance of communities. To borrow a comment made by Ms Fry in the House of Commons: [English] As we speak, the communities are disappearing. As we speak. [Translation] These are communities that we may never be able to save. They have become anglophone communities. I became impatient with the way things were unfolding. This was in early 1993, with the arrival of the Bloc Québécois, a group whose mission was to show that Canada didn't work, that there was no future for Canada. They wanted to show that federal programs, official language programs, don't meet the needs of these communities. The best way for them to do this was to show Quebekers that Canada was not a functional country. This is a group, which still sits on the committee, that is dedicated to the separation of Canada. We, the Acadians, are referred to as small game, dead ducks, warm corpses. These are the types of comments that we have been subjected to by this group. Shortly thereafter, another group came to support them. This was a regional, anti-francophone group: the Reformers. We therefore had two big parties, the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Party, who were in opposition and who were sitting on this committee. There were of course, the Liberals, who were always in favour of francophonie across Canada. Thus we had a reduced number of people who accepted the existence of two official languages in Canada. The senators who are motivated and dedicated to the cause simply lost patience and confidence. I am one of those, and I will admit this to you very frankly. I simply asked to be relieved of my duties in this committee. Senator Gauthier is suggesting that we establish a committee comprised of senators who still believe in Canada. This committee could take a very close look at the problems facing remote communities. It is easy to be francophone in Quebec City. The same thing cannot be said for Baie Sainte-Marie in Nova Scotia or the Évangeline region in Prince Edward Island, the francophone regions in Newfoundland and in the western part of the country. It is very difficult. When neither the government nor the parliamentarians give visible support to these official language minority communities, these communities start forgetting and say: "Why not give it all up?" The dream of seeing both official languages across Canada is fading. I fear that, at one point, we will have a francophone Quebec - the dream of Reformers and separatists - and the rest of Canada will be anglophone. You said that you are hoping to work with the standing committee. You even say this in your report, and I quote: In addition, the committee could play a greater role in examining possibilities for enhanced federal-provincial cooperation in community development. I think that that is a very elegant way of saying that they are not doing their job. Is that not so? Ms Adam: Yes, because I commented on this part alone. Of course, I appreciate your comments on the situation of minority communities. I believe that you are quite right when you say that it is imperative that we take action. As for political and administrative leadership, this was probably the major observation made in the annual report. This was reiterated in the most recent report on service, where I went into a bit more detail about the issue of leadership, how it is defined, and who has the responsibilities. At present, the joint committee is identified as being a key player that must work in cooperation with the Office of the Commissioner and other key players. The only way that we are going to really be successful in making significant and sustainable changes is if several groups work together in a comprehensive manner. Parliamentarians have a role to play. I have already heard it said that we need a "star" to make some progress with official languages. That will not be the case. I believe that this file must be nurtured by everyone responsible, regardless of what their duties may be. That is the best way to achieve concrete results. Senator Comeau: Have you been approached by the leaders of the Official Languages Committee to plan the future work of the Joint Committee? Ms Adam: Yes. Last week I spent a bit of time with the joint chairs and I met the other joint chair, Senator Maheu, to go over some files to determine whether or not there were any that the Joint Committee should be giving greater priority to. We had to sort through the files because there were so many of them; it is easy to get lost. It is more important that I make recommendations to the committee about files where only the committee members can play a significant role and make a difference. Senator Comeau: Since 1993, we have had an Official Opposition in the House of Commons that is not inclined to defend the official languages community. What worries me is that we may lose another seven or eight years. It is the role of the Senate to resolve problems for minority communities. This is lacking in our country and I am therefore presuming that we are not doing our jobs as senators. I asked to appear before this committee, even at the session earmarked for the discussion of future business. As proposed by Senator Gauthier, senators were invited to appear before the committee: four Quebecers. And there is myself, someone who lives in the community - I go there every weekend and I see what is going on in this remote community. My community is not facing the same problem as Quebec, it is a very different problem. I was not invited to appear before the committee. Even the senators do not acknowledge the magnitude of the problem. Perhaps the time has come to listen to our learned members, such as Senator Gauthier and others, who are aware of the magnitude of the problem. Ms Adam: I have had only a brief tenure as Commissioner of Official Languages. I agree with your observation that it is imperative to act and to be accountable as parliamentarians. Obviously, I cannot cast judgement on the committee's previous years or performance. Senator Losier-Cool: I am a member of the Official Languages Committee and I believe that you will be appearing before the committee this afternoon. I remember when you were appointed commissioner. During your first appearance before the Official Languages Committee, you said: "I upset the applecart" Bravo! You kept your promise. I think that your most recent presentations have upset things a bit. I must say that you upset things to the point where you achieved positive results. As examples, there was the appointment of a minister responsible for official languages and the historic agreement that British Columbia's francophones signed with Heritage Canada and the Government of British Columbia, an agreement that was signed because of pressure that was exerted as a result of your comments. In your meetings with Canadians in minority situations, be they anglophones from Quebec or francophones living elsewhere in Canada, did you hear any comments or talk about the Official Languages Committee? Do the people have any thoughts about the committee? Ms Adam: You need to make a distinction between organized communities, namely, associations, and the representatives or members of an official language community, who are citizens. I held a series of consultations the first year of my mandate and I met with approximately 53 groups representing both languages, both majority and minority, in each of the provinces. In all, I met with about 500 people. I spent two or three hours talking to each of these groups. I felt that it was very important, as I began this job, to really take the pulse of the Canadian public in terms of official languages, the role of the Office of the Commissioner, what we need to be doing and how far we have come over the past 30 years. The Joint Committee was rarely mentioned. To my knowledge, this issue was raised a few times by the associations, namely, the more politicized groups. Senator Losier-Cool: The nature of your meetings was different. I feel more useful to the people I represent, when I go to my region, than I do sitting on the Official Languages Committee which I daresay is not a prestigious committee such as the banking or foreign affairs committees. There is no waiting list of members who wish to sit on this committee. Does a joint committee have greater visibility because members of Parliament sit on it, compared to a Senate committee where we advocate for the interests of the general public? Ms Adam: I am chiefly interested in the results, the means should be a secondary consideration. Senator Losier-Cool: But if the means have an impact on the results? Ms Adam: Parliament has two Chambers each having very clear responsibilities. If they work together, if they are in sync and work effectively, they will be a lot stronger. It is more likely that you will achieve results at the end of the day. We are talking about full implementation of Canadian policy on official languages. If there is a problem with the means, namely if there is not any synergy or harmony, if there are opposing visions within a group such as the one described by Senator Comeau, it will be more difficult to achieve the results. We will spend more time dealing with our differences than with our common objectives and what brings us together. In order for a committee to function, it has to define its common objectives and work towards the achievement of these objectives. This is the key to a good committee and it is the same everywhere you go. Senator Losier-Cool: We are discussing this matter today because we have established that this synergy does not exist or, if it does, it is very shaky. Senator Joyal: The primary reason you are appearing here today is because, further to a motion presented in the Senate by Senator Gauthier, the real problem pertaining to the way that the Joint Committee is functioning was referred to the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. We are not here to discuss the official enforcement of the legislation in the government. We are here to discuss the parliamentary mechanism provided for in section 88 of the act, to achieve the objectives of the legislation. Senator Gauthier and other senators concluded - and they stated this publicly in the Senate in the debate following Senator Gauthier's motion - that the committee was not meeting these objectives. Senator Gauthier took the initiative to withdraw from the committee and to establish a Senate committee. I agree with you, and Senator Murray said this in the Senate during the debate further to Senator Gauthier's motion, that the ideal and desirable situation would be one whereby we could work towards maintaining the joint nature of the committee. In my opinion, this is by far the preferred solution. However, in 1988, the Mulroney government presented this motion and we must acknowledge that the committee was entrenched in the Constitution as a result of an initiative taken by the Mulroney government. This must be recognized officially. Beforehand, only a Standing Order recognized the existence of the committee. Section 88 indicates that this can be a committee from either one of the two Houses. The legislator, in his wisdom, recognized that there may be circumstances which would justify each Chamber having its own parallel committee to deal with the fulfilment of the objective set forth in the Official Languages Act. If we have reached this point - and I make no comment or judgment regarding the way that previous committees operated - now that it is in the law, it is, in my opinion, almost inevitable for you, in your annual report, to comment on the work performed by the parliamentary tool associated with your mandate. If the Parliament of Canada of the government of the day took the initiative to state that effective fulfilment of the objectives of the legislation required a parliamentary committee, it seems to me that it is part of your mandate, as an agent of Parliament, for both the Senate and the House of Commons, to inform us yearly of the effectiveness of the parliamentary arm which is an integral part of the instruments established by Parliament to meet the objectives of the act. When Senator Gauthier took the initiative of tabling his motion, I was somewhat frustrated because I wondered how we could get to this point if, in practice, the agent of Parliament - throughout the last years when the commissioner, Mr. Victor C. Goldbloom only appeared once a year - could truly discharge his responsibilities, whereas the existence of one committee or the other is very clearly set out in the legislation. In your next report, should you not speak out on the manner in which you feel the committee is working or not, with all due respect for the members' privileges as to whether or not they take on their role? You are an agent of Parliament. You are not only subject to the orders of Parliament. You are someone who assists Parliament, and as a result, you are part of the process through which Parliament assumes its responsibilities. I understand that you are not in a position to speak about past history today. If we are to satisfy the objectives proposed in Senator Gauthier's motion, as illustrated in Senator Comeau's speech, you will have to give your opinion in your annual report, on the workings of the parliamentary committee, or committees if there are two. You may do so in such a way as to respect the members' privileges. You are an agent of Parliament, and this committee is not a whim, it is a planned legislative committee. There are very few Senate or House of Commons committees that have legislative status. When you have a legislative committee, it is important from then on to be able to assess the performance of that committee. It is equally important to get your opinion and the opinion of the people who help you. In the normal scheme of things, you should ensure that all the means at your disposal are being used. Ms Adam: My mandate is clear. I must take all the steps incumbent upon me to ensure that the Official Languages Act is complied with in full. The committee is one of the significant mechanisms that helps me to take the necessary steps. I feel somewhat uncomfortable, because during my first year, I did not even write a report, and last year, there were federal elections, therefore the two houses did not sit. In order to truly be able to proceed with the assessment you are asking me to do, I would have to research past relationships between the Office and the Parliamentary committee, and the work the committee has done as a result of our reports. I would prefer to work on the present rather than the past, but I will keep your recommendation in mind. Senator Joyal: Without wanting to dig through the past, my request concerns this year. We would all benefit from reading your opinion of the proceedings of the committee in your report. You are not only an agent of Parliament, but you are also an amicus curiae of Parliament, someone who must assist Parliament in assuming its responsibilities. If Parliament assumes this responsibility more or less efficiently, you are the person designated to push Parliament to reconsider its way of doing business as concerns official languages. You have not hesitated to do so when the administration was at fault, and your perspective is appreciated by the people concerned, as has been pointed out. This is not an exclusive preserve. Parliament is within the purview of your perspective and your good advice. I would suggest that you concentrate on the period of time beginning with your mandate, that you study the way in which things have happened over the last year. If there are any problems, they must be pointed out so that the necessary steps can be taken to correct the situation. People do not always like being reminded of such things, but this is all part of our responsibilities. Ms Adam: Should that really be part of my annual report? Senator Joyal: I believe so. I make this suggestion because when I was elected in the Other Place, in 1974, my interest in the public service brought about my membership in the Public Accounts Committee. I learned something during my two years at this committee, where I was also vice-chairman. The Auditor General at the time, Mr. James McDonald, did an assessment of the committee which he included in his report at the end of the year. This was very useful for the organization and structuring of the proceedings of the committee for the following years. The Auditor General is an agent of Parliament. You are also one, and there are precedents. This was very useful, at least it was when I was on the committee. [English] Senator Murray: I will say a few words in English just to show that we are truly bilingual in the Senate, and to give the interpreters some variety. When I think about official language policy, I do so under the headings of "language of service," "language of work," and "equitable representation of both linguistic groups in our federal jurisdiction." That comes out of the 1969 Official Languages Act and amendments that were made to it in 1988. Included among the amendments of 1988 were provisions that gave the government some legislative capacity to come to the aid of official language minorities across the country. I was thinking about that when my friend, Senator Comeau, was speaking. I hear what he is saying about "taux d'assimilation et taux d'anglicisation dans notre province natale." That being said, I have a well-thumbed copy of the journal of André Laurendeau, a journal that he kept during his travels as co-chairman of the B&B commission in the mid 1960s. I have had occasion to refer to it several times, at least. One cannot help but be struck by the gains that have been made, albeit painfully, over the years. I do not want to insist, Senator Gauthier and Senator Comeau, that the glass is half-full and not half-empty, but still, the situation today for official language minorities bears no resemblance to the situation that Laurendeau found as he travelled the country. That travel took him through New Brunswick and Ontario as well. I speak not only of the status of minorities in English majority provinces, but also of the situation right here in the national capital. This coming autumn, marks the fortieth year anniversary of my working in Ottawa. I have been back and forth from Ottawa many times since. What struck me 40 years ago was that this place was wall-to-wall English. Only documents that were considered constitutionally necessary to publish in both languages were so published. In the House of Commons, Hansard made a next day translation of a speech that might have been given in French the day before.There was still debate in the Senate whether to bring in simultaneous translation. You should read the debates. They are rather hilarious. I am old enough to remember all that. Even as a unilingual Cape Bretoner, but one who knew a little bit of history, I knew there was something wrong with that. I also know in my heart that if the Official Languages Act had not been brought in when it was in 1969, that the generation that came to maturity in Quebec in the 1960s would not have remained Canadian. I think that we might have lost the country. Anyway, that is a long, roundabout way of coming to two points. My party was in government for nine years, and during that time I had some direct responsibility in these areas and paid fairly close attention to what was happening. I am aware that over the same period of time, enormous changes were made in terms, not just of language of service, but also language of work. There was a more equitable representation of the two language groups. I assumed that that progress would be maintained. Imagine my surprise when I picked up the paper, and saw that the proportion offrancophone deputy ministers had declined. I do not know whether "precipitously" is the right word, but the declined had been significant in only a period of a few years. That did not happen because several people in the government decided that what was needed were fewer francophones. It happened because of inattention. I did not know about it because I was not paying attention. I had stopped paying attention. I was out of the government. I was involved in other matters. I read it in the paper. Some years ago Parliament gave the Auditor General of Canada the power, not just to table an annual report, but to table periodic reports during the year. I do not know whether you have that capacity. Do you? Ms Adams: Yes. Senator Murray: Good, I encourage you to use it. Second, if there had been a committee that operated, if I may say so with due modesty, the way the old joint committee used to operate, I and others, who were not paying close enough attention, would have realized what was happening before we needed to be reminded by a report from you. There is another thing that would be useful for a Senate committee such as this. As a rule, I do not believe that you, or for that matter the government, should venture too aggressively outside of our own jurisdiction on these matters. I am not sure that doing so contributes to a better understanding of these problems Situations have come up such as the language situation in the national capital and this is certainly a matter of legitimate concern. Senator Joyal is of the view, which he recently expressed, that a bilingual regime could be imposed by Parliament on the City of Ottawa under the peace, order and good government clause of the Constitution. That must certainly be a last resort for one who is concerned. It is not a line of action or even of thought that I would encourage. Again, we have the issue of Montfort Hospital, which is another problem that is now the subject of court action. It would be helpful on these situations for us to have a forum where we could exchange views constructively and sensibly and help mobilize public opinion as best we can. There are legal rights. They are in the Constitution, we all understand that. People have had to battle for their legal rights in the courts, but it is far preferable, it seems to me, in a country like ours, if we could use the democratic, parliamentary process to make head way. I think that there should be a Senate committee for the reasons that I have stated. I have come reluctantly to that view because of what I have been told by my friends today. I also think that it is a good idea for the commissioner, on a matter such as equitable representation among deputy ministers, to flash the amber light quickly so that we can get on to it. Once there is a little bit of movement around a parliamentary committee, the system would take note of issues we raise. The Deputy Chairman: Would you like to make any comments, Ms Adams? Ms Adams: It is tempting. Senator Murray raised many issues. I would like to react to several of them. I think that your historic recollection reminds us all that the Official Languages Act is a work in progress that we have not fully implemented. However, it is being worked on, and we should not forget it. Also, that the commissioner has a unique role to make the diagnosis and speak out openly. The last report was diagnostic of the situation. It was not only the participation rate of deputy ministers that was a problem. There was definitely an erosion of linguistic rights, due largely to both the budgetary cuts and the governmental transformations. We have no idea how this has an impact. So far, we have not had concrete actions taken to prevent this occurring. This is an issue on which we need to work closely and should be looked at by the committee. I hear also that you have certain expectations. I think that you speak on behalf of the senators that you expect some actions on the part of the commissioner. I appreciate that. It does give me a chance to hear what you expect of me. I think that is important in terms of collaboration. I would like to address an opinion that you expressed that is also core to some of the issues with which we are living across Canada with respect to linguistic rights. I may not be using your words exactly, but I interpreted your were saying that as far as possible we, the federal government and the commissioner, should not intervene outside our federal domain. We should be not be too expansive in the province. I must say that the commissioners do intervene regularly in the provincial courts. It is part of my mandate to ensure that any legal action taken before either federal or provincial courts respects language rights. I will intervene, even though it may create problems, at times. As you will see, as soon as you leave this committee, many people are upset by decisions that we make when we intervene. My office has done so, in the past in terms of education rights. We will be intervening in the municipal merger in Montreal to defend basically the principle that is always the same. It is a constitutional principle that binds all governments with respect to progress towards equality of French and English in Canadian society and not regression. I may have misinterpreted, but I wanted to raise this issue. [Translation] Senator Gauthier: I would like to go back to the expression "agent of change," since you want to be perceived as such. You spoke of the transformation of government, as well as of staff reductions. Your budget is approximately $11,300,000. Fifty per cent of the budget is dedicated to dealing with complaints; 30 per cent is earmarked for administration; 15 per cent is dedicated to research and 20 per cent is set aside for professional services. I quote these figures from memory. If you are to become an agent of change, we will have to stop seeing the Office as an agency for "crybabies," who only investigate complaints, because the average Canadian's perception is that the Commissioner of Official Languages only takes care of "whiners." We do not want any more moaning and groaning, we want research to support us, and we want a proactive agent of change. When I proposed a new independent Senate committee to the Senate, this was nothing new. I could give you a whole list of committees, such as the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Board of Internal Economy, the Committee on National Finance, the Transport and Communications Committee - 19 committees have been struck by the Senate - that tie in easily with the House of Commons' committees. These committees deal with the same subjects. They have a different program, it is true. I sincerely believe that it is the role of senators to ensure the promotion of official languages. I sincerely believe this, or I would not be here, because I have no time to waste. If you truly want to meet with members of Parliament, do you go to committee meetings regularly? Ms Adam: To the joint committee, yes. Senator Gauthier: I am not referring to your annual report, but to the five or six meetings concerning CPAC, or yesterday's meeting where we discussed Air Canada. Was someone from the Office present? Ms Adam: Always. There is always someone present from my office, and I myself sometimes go to hear witnesses. Senator Gauthier: They were not identified, because I did not see this person yesterday. When the Auditor General of Canada appears before the Public Accounts Committee, he is very well identified and he sits beside the main witness. Senator Joyal: He is seated in front. Senator Gauthier: He sits with the witness. The witness is the person called before the committee to discuss the problems In the past, the practice was sometimes to invite the Commissioner to give a briefing on the problems you pointed out. It could be from department X, Y or Z or the agency responsible for the implementation of the act. In your report, you mentioned that there must be changes. The Auditor General of Canada came and we would even have a preliminary meeting before the main meeting, in order to give all members of Parliament an opportunity to become familiar with the file. People knew what it was about. Why not do the same thing with official languages? Ms Adam: I share your opinion. You are saying that if we want to be an agent of change, we must be proactive. I agree with that, as we have been involved in a process of strategic planning since the beginning of my mandate. A strategic change in direction is underway within the office, not in order to eliminate the complaints aspect, because this remains important work for the office, but to diversify the kinds of steps taken by the office in the past. In order to do this, the Office and I intend to become more involved with the parliamentary committee, be there one or two. What you have suggested is exactly what I would like to do. In order to show you the power of a proactive rather than reactive initiative, I would like to give you an example from the Department of Immigration. This department has a bill that is presently being studied in the House of Commons. As we were not at all satisfied with the bill within the context of the official languages goals, we worked closely with the minister and her team. Following this, at least three amendments were made to the bill. The bill now corresponds to what we were looking for when I appeared before the parliamentary committee studying this issue. You say that the Commissioner and her team should be more present around the table. I must admit that I have not been invited, but as you have said, I do not need an invitation. It is up to me to take the initiative and create other practices. This is what I understand today. Senator Gauthier: I will give you an example. We received the Treasury Board last week. I knew, because you had said so in your annual report, that there was an agreement between you, Transport Canada, and Treasury Board concerning complaints. I asked Mr. Pigeon, who I believe is a lawyer at Treasury Board, a question regarding this agreement. He answered that none existed. I had a series of questions relating to a statement in the annual report and the witness told me at that point in time that it did not exist. Had the Commissioner of Official Languages been present, I could have asked if what was written in the report was true. I looked like a fool. I do not like being made to look like a fool! Do you understand? This is why I am asking you to be a bit more proactive. Ms Adam: I will bear that in mind, and I certainly do not want you to look like a fool. I will do everything I can so that this will not happen again. Senator Joyal: Could we ask you to have a formal meeting with the two joint chairs of the committee, and ask if you could have the same status that the Auditor General has with the Public Accounts Committee? If memory serves me well, during my years at the Public Accounts and joint committees, at every committee meeting, the Auditor General's representative or the Auditor General himself sat at the table, in the foreground, beside the witness, and he was introduced. The transcription of the proceedings of the committee formally reflected the presence and the recognition of the Commissioner or the Commissioner's representative, and of what was said. I believe it is essential that you be introduced, specifically because of your status as an agent of Parliament. You are a crucial link with Parliament. I am not accusing you, but I ask the question in the abstract: How can you not be there, within the context of the procedural work of the committee and the decisions that must be made there? This would also result in avoiding delays or misunderstandings, such as those Senator Gauthier just spoke of. It appears to me to be part of the status that you have. I believe this is a relatively simple thing. We only have to look at how the Public Accounts Committee works. This was always within the intentions of the founders of this committee. We realized later on, with experience, that it was not working, whereas we thought that it was. We were under the impression that the entire system was unravelling, that there had been something of a meltdown, that there was no more working structure for the committee. The Official Languages Committee relies on the Commissioner, regardless of what subject is under discussion. It is extremely important that we tighten up the committee's practices, in order to avoid having to make the decision that Senator Gauthier has put before us, that is to split up the two committees. Ms Adam: I find these discussions very useful. As my experience is rather limited, it is true that my colleagues, who have been at the Office for a long time, reminded me that the Office and the Commissioner had a much more limited but more active role than in the past. This goes back a decade, but we had a very different relationship with our committee. Over the years, there has been a disintegration of this relationship without our knowing why. Today's discussion has allowed me to understand one of the main reasons that might explain why the Joint Committee has the problems that we have identified. We have a role to play. The Office and the Commissioner truly have a role to play in trying to make the committee more effective. Senator Murray: Every time the joint committee heard testimony from a deputy minister, a minister or a government agency, there was an opening statement, questions and answers between the members of the committee and the witness. Before adjourning the committee, the chairman always asked the Commissioner of Official Languages to make comments on the testimony he had just heard. It was very well done. Senator Comeau: I would not like the Commissioner to take a lot of time analyzing the ways in which the committee might function better. In Quebec, do you seriously think that the committee can work with the members of the Bloc Québécois and the members of the Canadian Alliance? That is the most important question. Ms Adam: As an agent of Parliament, I work on behalf of all political parties. [English] Senator Bryden: There are several things that concern me, and I will combine them into two observations. First, the issue that we are discussing is not whether there will be a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, and a committee from the Senate. Rather, it may be that instead of one joint committee of the two Houses, there will be a joint committee of the two Houses, a committee of the House of Commons and a committee of the Senate. I wonder how many staff would be required to attend all of those committee meetings? You might want to think about that. The second point that I want to make, and I do not really understand this, is something that arises from my own confusion. I believe that I heard in the translation that one of the roles of the commissioner would be to report on the performance of the committee. In normal parliamentary practice, the job of a parliamentary committee is to check on the performance of the commission. Are we not standing parliamentary practice on its head? If you were to do that, because the act empowers you to do that, it would seems a little strange to me. It is an odd thing to say, and I should not say it in this august company, but perhaps the tail is starting to wag the dog if we proceed with that situation. Senator Murray: If you do not have anything good to say about us, do not say anything. Ms Adams: There are no conditions when you start evaluating. Senator Gauthier: I would like to specify clearly that I am not asking that the joint committee be disbanded. Rather, I am saying that we should have one autonomous Senate Committee on Official Languages; the House can have their own committees and both of those can meet occasionally to discuss the situation or any problems with the commissioner. I want to make that clear. In respect of the resources needed for the committees, right now we have 16 members from the House of Commons and nine from the Senate. My propositions called for five or seven members at the most. That would be a reduction, which would be good. There are no human resources required beyond what we can do. Senator Bryden: I was not concerned about our resources, but I was asking the commission if it can attend three sets of committee meetings instead of one, which it is required to do annually. Senator Joyal: I want to comment on the question raised by Senator Bryden in respect of the appreciation that might be requested from you. I will speak in English to be sure that I am well understood. We would not have the tail wagging the dog if we continued with this. In his annual report, the Auditor General of Canada, as I mentioned in my question to the commissioner, made the list of the sitting of the public account committees. The report also raised the issues that the committee has studied and pronounced on the other aspects of his report that has not been dealt with by the committee. So, we have a factual appreciation of what the committee has been doing. It is not a comment that is subjective, but rather it is a comment that is based on objective appreciation of the committee. For instance, as Senator Gauthier said, if the committee decided on the availability of his time to spend five meetings on CPAC in the House of Commons, and another five meetings on other issues, it would be considered the privilege of a parliamentarian to make those decisions. As a non-member of the committee I want to be informed, when I read your report, that the essential and most urgent aspects have been dealt with by the committee. Then I am able to decide whether to intervene or not. If I do not follow the report, then I do not have the capacity to appreciate what the committee has been doing in the year. In that case, I would be left in a position where I cannot make the appropriate judgment, unless I talk to individual members of the committee, who sometimes attend irregularly for various reasons. That is essentially what I wanted to speak about. I wanted to ask you to measure, with objective criteria, the aspects of the work that the committee has been doing. That has been done in the public accounts committee, where I have been a member for two years. Senator Bryden: A committee is capable of providing information on how many times it met and the subject matter it dealt with. The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, senators and Ms Adams It has been a fascinating discussion. I hope that you take away useful information, Ms Adams Ms Adams: Definitely, I will. Thank you. The Deputy Chairman: Thank you once again. The committee adjourned.