Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday October 8, 2003
The Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages met this day 12:00 to study Bill S-11. An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French).
The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The purpose of our special meeting today is to hear from the Commissioner of Official Languages, who has just presented us with her Annual Report 2002-2003. I would like to thank the Commissioner for fitting in with our rather heavy schedule.
Ms. Dyane Adam, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: It is a great pleasure to be here, Madam Chair, I will start by introducing my colleagues: Johanne Tremblay, General Counsel and Director, Legal Services Branch; Guy Renaud, Director General, Policy and Communications; Michel Robichaud, Director General, Investigations Branch; and Gérard Finn, special advisor to the office of the Commissioner.
I have just tabled my fourth annual report, and I would like to take this opportunity to share its highlights with you and discuss its content and numerous recommendations.
Let us take stock. The year 2002-2003 began like many other years as far as official languages are concerned, with no great fanfare. However, the year certainly ended on a positive note. You closely monitor the health of English and French and you noted, as I did, an erosion of the government's commitment to official languages during the 90's.
When I took office in 1999, I voiced serious concerns and called on the entire political class and the federal administration to show greater leadership on linguistic duality. To my great satisfaction, I now recognize that the federal government has begun to change course.
My optimism about the future of official languages within the federal administration and Canadian society is in large part due to the publication of the much-anticipated Action Plan for the Official Languages. Let me be clear: this plan is one of the most significant expressions of leadership on official languages in the past decade. If I had to use an image to explain what this plan means for Canadians, I would say that it is a piece to be performed by a full orchestra. We have been waiting for the Canadian official languages symphony for some time, but now, thanks to the action plan, we have the score and all the musicians know their respective parts.
Although I applaud the determination that led to the development of the action plan, I see this as only the beginning. A plan, like a map, may very well serve as a guide, but we have only just begun the journey. To reach our destination, we must not only know how to read the map, but also actually set off on the journey. The true measure of success will be whether the plan is fully and completely implemented. It is not enough to set ambitious objectives; the government must also make the necessary effort to attain them.
We have closely studied the Action Plan for Official Languages. The annual report presents an analysis. I think it is a noteworthy contribution that will help re-launch the official languages program, but is not a magic cure. For one thing, the plan does not deal with some important areas for official languages such as bilingualism in our national capital, the arts, and the promotion of our linguistic duality internationally. In addition, the plan does not place enough emphasis on how to make linguistic duality an integral part of our Public Service.
What is more disturbing is that the plan provides no mechanism for evaluating its implementation at regular intervals. This is a weakness that could jeopardize the attainment of its objectives. I am going to take the government at its word and ask it to report on progress made towards the realization of the objectives of the plan.
My first recommendation proposes three ways to strengthen the action plan. First, an evaluation framework must be established to assess the steps taken and measure performance: by performance, I mean the results obtained.
Second, the government should establish a framework for intergovernmental cooperation with the provinces and territories. A number of objectives do, in fact, lies in areas of provincial jurisdiction, including education and health. I propose specific recommendations for each of these areas, recommendations 5 and 6, and I will return to these later.
The third way in which the government could strengthen its action plan is to develop a strategy for ongoing consultations and dialogue with the official language majorities with a view to including them in the government's efforts.
[English]
My second recommendation is addressed to this committee. I urge you to continue to closely monitor the implementation of the five-year action plan. There would be many occasions to move this plan along. It would be important for this committee to convene each year to hear those responsible so that they would be able to publicly report the attained results.
Your role as parliamentarians is essential to my work as ombudsman. Parliamentarians are the voice of the people. Senators have been leading by example, and have demonstrated through participation that progress in official languages is a function of the efforts put into it; and I thank honourable senators for that participation.
This year's annual report contains a new component. We present an analysis of the implementation of recommendations contained in our studies, investigations and follow-ups. The analysis reveals that the federal administration's performance with respect to official languages is uneven. I am still too often called upon to act as a disciplinarian and to do follow-ups on my follow-ups.
Institutions and managers should live up to their responsibilities as a matter of course. I call on the entire federal administration to take the success stories described in this report as an example to follow. Leadership by the federal administration is the necessary component to political leadership.
My fourth recommendation is aimed primarily at the senior public service. Deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers should attain the same level of bilingualism as that required of other executives in the public service. Deputy minister positions open to those outside the public service should be staffed on an imperative basis to ensure bilingualism.
As you know, the president of Treasury Board has tabled a bill on the modernization of human resources management, which should be adopted soon. I intervened in the legislative review process to propose amendments. One of the changes made to the bill is the addition of a clause in the preamble acknowledging linguistic duality as a fundamental value of the public service. This ``guiding principle,'' to quote the president of Treasury Board, Minister Robillard, should also serve as a basis for updating related policies. The annual report offers a detailed recommendation on modernizing human resources.
This modernization must be accompanied by a change in culture conducive to linguistic duality, by emphasizing principles and values instead of rules, by informing senior public servants of their responsibilities, by making people appointed to senior positions aware of their responsibilities when they are hired, and by progressively eliminating non- imperative staffing.
Canadians tell us that health care is a national priority. The first step in care is listening. Quality care depends on the ability of health care professionals to establish a relationship of trust with the patient. As a clinical psychologist, I know that this is a key element in the healing process. How can someone provide a diagnosis and suggest a treatment if they cannot adequately understand or communicate with the patient? The responsibility for caring for our citizens with human dignity must include linguistic considerations. As the epic fight over the Montfort Hospital showed us, official language minority communities are well aware of the fragile nature of the health care services they receive in their own language.
A number of stakeholders have raised the possibilities of signing new agreements with the provinces and territories to benefit the minority communities; or of changing the current agreements to include specific provisions on health care services in the minority language. Another possibility is to draw inspiration from the official languages in education agreements administered by Canadian Heritage, and develop similar agreements in health care. I ask the Minister of Health in my sixth recommendation to take measures to that end.
[Translation]
In my report, I come back to the issue of bilingualism in the national capital. I recommend that the federal minister responsible for official languages examine the question and take all measures to have the national capital declare officially bilingual. If we look at the commitment made by the Premier of Ontario, the context today looks much more favourable for implementing this recommendation then it did a few months ago.
In our overview of this year, we also note that the government did not implement all the recommendations in the 2001-2002 annual report. Of last year's seven recommendations, two have been fully implemented, two are in the process of being implemented and three have not yet been implemented. I had to reiterate two recommendations, including the one that the government give the Ministerial Reference Group on Official Languages the status of a permanent cabinet committee so that is can support the implementation of the plan.
I know that you are committed to ensuring that concrete measures are taken to implement Part VII of the Official Languages Act, just as I am. That is why I am also reiterating my recommendation from last year on the binding nature of this part of the Act. The vitality of the official language minority communities should not remain wishful thinking, it is a requirement for the promotion of linguistic duality as a fundamental value of this country.
In conclusion, I would say that since I took office, and this annual report is no exception, I have stressed the importance of leadership at both the political and administrative levels. I return to this question year after year. I must tell you however that I am very concerned about continuity these days, because we are in a transitional period for the government. Change is on the horizon. Some individuals may be called on to play new roles and new priorities will appear on the government's agenda.
Given that this is a question of fundamental values, the government has a constitutional and legislative obligation to follow through on language matters and to work to ensure the true equality of French and English in Canada. This has not yet been achieved. The entire matter of official languages must remain at the very centre of government priorities. Thank you, I will be happy to answer your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you, Commissioner, for your presentation. In your recommendations, you say that Parliamentarians echo the work of your office. We not only echo your work, I think we are in unison with you. The fourth report which this committee presented to the Senate last week contained several recommendations along the same lines as yours.
Senator Gauthier: Your report this year holds up better than it did last year. I mean this as a compliment. In paragraph 5 of the press release accompanying your annual report, you indicated that this year you would be emphasizing accountability and transparency. Who audits the books of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages?
Ms. Adam: Our financial statements are submitted to the Secretariat of the Treasury Board each year, but without an external audit. As a follow-up to what was done this summer, since I attach great importance to the importance of the transparency and credibility of our office and the federal government, our financial statements will be audited by the Auditor General from this year on.
Senator Gauthier: That is excellent. Since you have held this position, in other words since 1999, all your annual reports and indeed your office's estimates have been studied in committee and, as far as I know, have been approved before the final date of May 31.
Ms. Adam: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Gauthier: As senior public servants, you and Ms. Fraser have a special relationship with members of Parliament and senators.
Ms. Adam: To repeat something I said earlier, we enjoyed the confidence of the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages. The joint committee always studied the budget of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Senator Gauthier: Has the Public Service Commission audited your staffing standards since your appointment as commissioner?
Ms. Adam: We submit an annual report to the Public Service Commission pursuant to the agreement on delegation of authority. To my knowledge, however, the Commission has not audited our procedures.
Senator Gauthier: You have been delegated staffing authority. You have also been granted a certain freedom of action with respect to management. Has Treasury Board examined your procedures?
Ms. Adam: I should explain that our senior officials are appointed by the Public Service Commission. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has not been delegated the authority to make its own senior appointments. Treasury Board receives a report each year. To my knowledge, however, there has been no audit. The Public Service Commission is responsible for appointing senior officials.
Senator Gauthier: Did you swear an oath of allegiance at the time of your appointment?
Ms. Adam: I do not believe I took an oath. I did, however, meet the ethics counsellor.
Senator Gauthier: It is strange that some appointees are required to take an oath but this was not so in your case.
To change subjects, the Access to Information Act does not provide for access to information held by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Would you be in favour of an amendment to the act so that some MPs and senators could gain access to this information?
Ms. Adam: The government has undertaken a re-examination of the existing act. Consultations along these lines were carried out over the years. During these consultations, each officer of Parliament was invited to come and give an opinion.
I myself have no objection to my office's coming under the Access to Information Act. Of course, there would be an exception in the case of certain legal opinions or certain other information not normally provided under the act — our investigations, for example.
I see no reason, however, why information on expense accounts could not be made available.
Senator Gauthier: The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages operates independently of the government, but you are not independent as far as your budget is concerned. As commissioner, you must defend your budget in order to get the necessary funding to fulfil your role.
As an officer of Parliament, as an officer of government and as a senior official, you are obliged, as it were, to plead your case before Treasury Board to get the funds you need. Does this arrangement suit you?
Ms. Adam: I will be very honest with you. I have expressed some concerns in this regard to various levels of government and to the Prime Minister, the minister to whom I answer, administratively speaking. On two occasions I had to appear before Treasury Board to request additional funds, and as an officer of Parliament, I find this situation very uncomfortable.
For example, when we asked for additional funding to restore the audit function within the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Treasury Board claimed that it was responsible for the role of auditor. This difference in opinion gave rise to a debate with Treasury Board on the mandate of our office. The situation was quite uncomfortable.
Of course Treasury Board as an employer is responsible for audits. The role of the Official Languages Commissioner, however, is similar to that of the Auditor General with respect to external audits, independent of government.
The institutions conduct their own audits, as does the employer. Nevertheless, the Official Languages Commissioner should not be excluded from carrying out external independent audits, as long as these are submitted directly to Parliament.
Thus, it is true to say that we have been somewhat uncomfortable.
Senator Gauthier: My questions on the second round will deal with the report.
Senator Comeau: First of all, I would like to welcome you here, Commissioner. My first question has to do with implementing the action plan. Who is responsible for implementing this plan? Would it be Mr. Dion, the President of Treasury Board or the Minister of Canadian Heritage?
Ms. Adam: In the action plan accountability framework, Mr. Dion is identified as the coordinator, but we can use the analogy of an orchestra conductor to illustrate the shared responsibilities.
Senator Comeau: Then Mr. Dion is the person in charge?
Ms. Adam: Yes, he is the coordinator and is accountable for the action plan as a whole. Nevertheless, the law is clear on responsibilities relating to education agreements. These always come under the Minister of Canadian Heritage. For example, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cannot tell the Minister of Canadian Heritage what to do. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs may coordinate and make suggestions, but his role is not one of direct accountability.
Senator Comeau: This concerns me. I have worked in industry. The channels of responsibility and authority were very clear in that sector. It was easy to connect responsibilities to a specific authority or individual. When things went well, we know whom to compliment; when things went badly, we knew where to look for a remedy.
In a context where there is a division of responsibilities, quite often we find that no one is fully responsible. You get around the problem by shifting it off to someone else. As a parliamentarian, I am concerned about this. Do you share my concerns?
Ms. Adam: To some extent. Four or five years ago there was no concerted ministerial leadership with respect to official languages. Today the action plan provides us with concerted leadership. The ministers work together — and we saw this in the creation of the action plan.
I do share your concerns as regards implementation. The present Prime Minister has more or less refused to recognize the ministerial reference group as a standing cabinet committee. I feel it is very important we not lose this concerted leadership. The Minister of Canadian Heritage will of course retain her authority with respect to the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Justice. Our ministers, however, work together. It is clear that if there is no concerted and coherent political leadership, the leadership in the administration will suffer.
Senator Comeau: It is dangerous when responsibility is attached to an individual rather than to a position. At the moment, we have very convincing people working to move matters forward, but will the situation be the same two weeks or several months from now? We do not know. That is what worries us when there is a lack of precision.
My second question is with regard to cooperation between the provinces. Are you satisfied by the method contained in the action plan under which a department of health program will be done in cooperation with the provinces?
Ms. Adam: One of the major weaknesses of the official languages action plan is its accountability framework. Like many of the desired outcomes, be it in the area of health, education for the majority as well as for the minority or immigration, this is either under provincial jurisdiction or shared jurisdiction with the federal government.
This is why I made very specific recommendations under which a clearly defined intergovernmental cooperation framework be established so that the federal government can work with the provinces to achieve these objectives. That is one of my recommendations because this is not specified in the accountability framework.
This is why I insisted that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ms. Sheila Copps, encourage ministers of education to set out standards to assess progress on the objective, for instance, of recruiting more young francophones in our French schools. It is all very well to have an objective like that. It is very noble and ambitious to say that in 10 years, 80 per cent of young francophones will go to French schools. But will that objective be evaluated only in 10 years?
I am asking that the minister of education of each province quantify and account for that since the federal government will be spending more money and will transfer more to achieve this objective. Improvement should also be accounted for on an annual basis.
As a parliamentary committee, you will be in a position to see whether the situation has been corrected or improved and if not, what additional means should be taken during that period if necessary.
Senator Comeau: You are telling me that it is a very common practice in the private sector to have the means to achieve results when specific objectives have been set. I am worried that that evaluation is not in place. Perhaps this is something the committee should settle?
I would like to get back to the issue of the creation of new agencies which are not government agencies, such as Parks Canada and the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency. Do you have the means to verify the performance of these agencies?
Ms. Adam: Yes, these are agencies and institutions that are subject to the Official Languages Act. There are more than 175 of them. I think that crown corporations and agencies represent more employees in gross numbers than departments for which Treasury Board is the employer. That is precisely one of the reasons that led the Office of the Commissioner to reinforce the audit function. This will give us a tool to enable us to conduct a study on the state of linguistic duality in these institutions. Complaints are not a reliable indicator. It depends on the nature of the institution. There are some institutions that are much further from the Canadian public in terms of the services they offer.
That is really one of the objectives and I am concerned about it. Let me give you an example. Ms. Lucienne Robillard and her team conducted a study of the understanding of the official languages policy within our departments. The study revealed that there was significant misunderstanding of the official languages policy in our departments. We are talking about a context where institutions are much closer to Parliament, much closer to government.
What would be the result of this study if it were conducted among our other institutions and organizations that are subject to the law?
Senator Lapointe: I heard the entire interview that you gave to Mr. Jean Lapierre of CKAC radio. That interview was very interesting. In the first year following my appointment to the Senate, I went to the Department of Canadian Heritage and I do not remember whether the person I met with spoke French to me. However, I got the impression that this person did not understand what I was saying. I was somewhat offended. You have touched on an important point. If we want to ask all these corporations that are external to Parliament to apply the linguistic policy, we have to start from the inside, with the departments. I think there are many of them. This applies to both English and French.
We have to make sure that all departments have at least one person, among their representatives, who speaks both languages fluently. That is an opinion that I am expressing but I think that for all intents and purposes, that would be the best example to give people and corporations outside this environment.
Ms. Adam: What the law requires from our institutions is really an obligation to provide results, that is to provide the service in your language, in French or in English, and the number of people can vary enormously according to circumstances and various regions of the country. I am much more demanding because I want to see results.
Senator Chaput: Ms. Adam, I wish to congratulate you and thank you even though I see there is a great deal of work left to do. That is the reality. We must always carry on and you will always have to monitor this very closely. This is your role and your mandate.
The points of clarification I wanted have already been covered, but I will mention them briefly. I had questions regarding the accountability mechanisms. My questions have been addressed and they were about the federal departments. I believe that is essential. They also dealt with the cooperation framework which were mentioned in the Dion plan that will have to be developed with the provinces. We all know full well that giving money to the provinces is one thing, but ensuring that official language minorities receive their fair share of services, which should be provided to them with this money, is quite another thing. I think it is important to mentioned that to solve the problem.
The other point I would like to raise is of somewhat a more general nature. This is my major concern and it involves continuity. We have made a great deal of progress under the Dion plan and we have seen that there have been changes in the government structure. This is a concern for all communities in Canada. Nothing can be done about that and we have to monitor the situation very closely.
Within these departments, did you find any programs or criteria that could be changed with regard to long-term support for official language communities? For example, for Treasury Board, an ad hoc project is equivalent to one year. The funds are available for one year. An incredible project is established that would benefit communities, such as one-stop shop, and a year later, these funds are no longer available because the ad hoc project is finished. Given that official language minority communities need long-term support for this program to become a reality, would it not be appropriate to examine the objectives that these departments establish? An ad hoc project could mean three to five years. That would enable a community to establish things properly and would allow federal departments to plan their commitments with regard to certain initiatives that we both hold so dear.
Ms. Adam: You have put your finger on one of the objectives that should be shared by all the people present in this room. What we want from our federal institutions or the government is reflex behaviour: to be able and willing to serve official language minority communities. This behaviour should be integrated in their service culture. So it should become a reflex.
Right now, has that reflex behaviour started to set in among our institutions? The Department of Immigration, the Department of Human Resource Development and the Department of Health have all established mechanisms that promote this reflex behaviour for service to minorities. They have created a standing departmental committee with the francophone communities outside Quebec and the anglophone community of Quebec. That allows for ongoing dialogue and consultation. That is the kind of mechanism we should be working toward. This mechanism also exists under the action plan.
The other important lever is the recommendation I made regarding Part VII of the act. As long as this commitment by the government is not clarified, we will always have ambiguous behaviour on the part of our institutions. We will have either very lukewarm or highly committed behaviour vis-à-vis linguistic duality; all will depend on the level of commitment of the individuals heading up the program. To my mind, that is one of the most important levers to bring about the appropriate desired behaviour and ensure continuity in time and progress toward the equality of both languages.
Senator Corbin: You talked about having Ottawa declared an officially bilingual capital. On the night he was elected, in response to a direct question, Mr. McGuinty stated that his government would recognize the bilingual nature of Ottawa. He reiterated this twice. Bilingual nature is different from official bilingualism, is it not?
Ms. Adam: I have worked in all kinds of so-called officially bilingual institutions. What is important is that there be some kind of designation that is recognized. After that, we do not know how this official language duality will be experienced.
A municipality asked the province on two occasions that French and English be recognized as official languages in the City of Ottawa. They did not ask that the city be declared officially bilingual. At least that is if we rely on the wording used.
The important thing is that the federal government — I only have authority over the federal level — act so that there is formal recognition of both official languages in our capital or of the bilingual nature or official bilingualism but at least something so that we can see some progress on this issue.
Senator Corbin: Don't you think we should broaden the designation of bilingual capital to that of the National Capital Region? You talked about favourable circumstances to proceed in this manner. The circumstances are also favourable in Quebec where the federalist Premier, who worked in this environment, is very familiar with the situation. Should this not encompass the entire National Capital Region and not just the City of Ottawa?
Ms. Adam: The City of Ottawa is recognized in our Constitution as being the capital city. The way the Federation is set up, the provinces are responsible for their cities.
Senator Corbin: The other side of the river earns its living from the fact that the capital is in Ottawa. It seems to me logical to want to designate the whole capital region.
Ms. Adam: You know the saying: ``Grasp all, lose all.''
Senator Corbin: I grasp all. In any event, I have made my point. I would now like to move on to the issue of one of your offices, that of Moncton. You have a representative there who carries out responsibilities that you control. She has no initiative that you do not have or that you do not want to delegate to her. Could you describe the Moncton office operations at this time? Tell me about the hiring of the new person in that office, which was done this summer and which led to questions from Senator Comeau and myself before the hiring took place? You were telling us at the time that it was probably not possible to go backwards. You proceeded with the hiring of this person to fill a position while you had no other representative in the Atlantic provinces. Explain to me once again the logic of wanting to concentrate all operations in the Moncton office whereas you have established liaison agents in British Columbia and Alberta? Why not proceed the same way in the cradle of French Canada which is Acadia?
Ms. Adam: There are no Quebeckers here? We have used a very different approach. The Office of the Commissioner has five regional offices. Therefore five regional antennas.
The situation varies from one region to the next. We have not adopted any standard procedures. As my representatives in the regions are my antennae, they determine the pulse of the region in a way.
For instance, in Quebec, we added a liaison officer and he is at the Montreal office. We could have decided to set him up elsewhere, because the province is rather large. Upon consultation, the advice we got favoured the concentration of our resources in Montreal.
In other provinces, in other regions of the country, I will get back to Acadia — we have the Moncton office that covers the territories, British Columbia and Alberta and right now, we decided that because of the significant distances, we would set someone up in British Columbia. For Manitoba, we placed someone in Saskatchewan. With regard to the Atlantic region, we often considered the notion of putting staff elsewhere, because there is not only the representative, we also have investigators. That is the new liaison officer position. We had discussed placing an investigator in Halifax, because truth be told, many of our federal institutions in this region are in Halifax. For any number of operational reasons, it was decided to stay with the model of an office concentrated in Moncton. I do not favour one particular solution in these cases; I let the people in operations and the representatives advise me. That is the only reason I can give you.
Senator Corbin: You stated when you last appeared here that your commission did not have sufficient resources to undertake the work that you would truly wish to accomplish. Will you be asking for supplementary estimates in order to hire the staff that you need in regions throughout Canada?
Ms. Adam: I have already asked for additional funds and I have received some. They will be spread over three years. In fact, the increase in our budget was supported by the parliamentary official languages committees. Next year I expect to obtain more and again the following year. That brings me to 2004-2005.
Senator Corbin: How much is that in dollars?
Ms. Adam: This is an additional budget. After all payments are made, it will amount to $4 million added to our budget.
Senator Corbin: What do you need it for?
Ms. Adam: I will give you the details. The audit side that we spoke about represents approximately five positions. There will be a three-year audit plan and we will launch this new function because we will need to inform our federal institutions, tell them how it will proceed, et cetera. We should start this year. Five positions will be assigned over the next few years. In terms of parliamentary relations, the commission has strengthened its relationship with Parliament. Since I took office, we have been participating in all meetings. Four additional positions will be assigned to parliamentary relations and that does not only involve the official languages committees.
Senator Corbin: In Ottawa?
Ms. Adam: Yes. This year I appeared 10 times before parliamentary committees. That is included. There are also links with communities and regions. There will be an increase in this area, five new positions in the region.
Senator Corbin: Where?
Ms. Adam: There are positions in Moncton, Regina, Vancouver and Montreal and there will soon be one in Sudbury. Basically we have added a liaison officer in each regional office.
Senator Corbin: When you mentioned Moncton, did you mean the position that was filled this summer?
Ms. Adam: Yes.
Senator Corbin: Are there any others?
Ms. Adam: No, not in the near future.
Senator Corbin: And in Nova Scotia?
Ms. Adam: Unless we decide otherwise, there are no positions foreseen in the short run. Will the investigator's position be in Nova Scotia? That is an option. There will be a turnover of staff commission. We need to respect the people who have a position. Those factors will be considered at that time.
In terms of research and analysis in the social and legal sector, the commission is frequently involved in legal cases involving official languages, whether they take place in the provinces or at a national level, at the Supreme Court. We have assigned an additional position for the legal sector and two positions for research.
[English]
Senator Keon: There are great similarities between your report and the Senate report, although it took us 21 recommendations to express what we thought, while you did it in nine. Nonetheless, the message in the two reports is fundamentally the same.
As you may know, I have been a health administrator all my life, and I have been a health administrator of a bilingual institution. However, I have found that to sustain that bilingual institution we have had to find our own resources. Fundamentally, we are funded in the same way as a unilingual institution. We got a little bit of money from the Ontario government occasionally but nothing significant.
For example, a couple of years ago when I retired from surgery, in order to keep an equal number of francophones and anglophones on the surgical staff and have the quality we wanted, we chose a man from France. That cost us a great deal. There was no way we could get the funding to hire that surgeon. We just had to take the funds out of our global budget. The examples go on and on.
We have a major initiative in health promotion, prevention and so forth. That has to be a truly bilingual initiative. It is a must. However, there is little funding available from the province to carry out that initiative.
The accountability in the transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces is improving. I think there might be an opportunity to ``ratchet down'' one more step in accountability. In the federal-provincial transfer, the monies that are transferred to sustain bilingual institutions could be targeted. It would not be a big job. I hope that you will consider that suggestion.
Ms. Adam: I believe what you are proposing is similar to my recommendation six. In that recommendation I suggested that we use our education transfer agreements as a model for health care.
In the area of education, for example, post-secondary institutions like the University of Ottawa or other institutions in Canada that offer services in French, if that is a language of the minority, or English in Quebec, are part of the transfer. They are targeted as institutions to be eligible for incremental funding.
I was responsible in my own institution to work that through, even with the provincial government. It was clear that some monies were set out for those institutions. We have the models. We should just follow through in health. It works. It is not perfect, but at least it works.
Senator Keon: I do commend you for what you accomplished in health education, but with health care delivery, we are not there yet.
Ms. Adam: It is very interesting because, in Ontario, we work in the same system. When the act in Ontario was passed for the French language services, I was a practitioner in clinical psychology in Cornwall. After that, I went to university to do study more administration. At that time, the Government of Ontario, along with the federal government, invested a major initiative in developing training in medicine in French, including physiotherapy, and today we have many more bilingual health workers. If we had not started with education, we would not have that situation today. I think that is the model to use everywhere in Canada.
Senator Keon: I totally agree with that.
[Translation]
Senator Léger: This is my third year in the public service. The problem I have is with management. Ms. Robillard decided that ministers would be bilingual. As Pierre Foglia would say in La Presse, I have the Radio-Canada bug. I am surrounded by anglophones giving interviews. They are everywhere. Officials, Minister Graham, everyone whose in the headlines these days. It is as if it were natural. In the Senate there are senators — I am upset. I should be surprised.
What civil servants are saying in the corridors is unhealthy. I cannot prove what I am saying. They say that it is unfair. That anglophones are no longer being hired because they do not speak French and that soon there will only be francophones in the public service. They do not have the privilege of having the disease I have, the Radio-Canada bug. They do not know that it exists. I wonder why?
Public servants have not gotten this message. Is it because they are permanent? You cannot fire someone once they hold a position. They have to have had 35 years of service, just like the airlines. When Air Canada joined with Canadian, it was not easy. Why do civil servants not have a positive mentality? Why is it so hard for them to learn another language?
Ms. Adam: You are asking me to do a psychological study. I can answer this question at two levels. First, we need to acknowledge that improvements have been made in the federal government, in the public service. There are many more francophones and bilingual anglophones now than there were 30 o 35 years ago. This is a work in progress. We took a step forward this year and that is in my report.
Ms. Robillard held firm, so to speak, with respect to the deadlines for senior public servants. There were approximately 100 senior public servants who did not meet the language requirements of their position and who suffered the consequences.
We know that in psychology that if you want to change behaviour there has to be consequences; any parent knows this. In order to change the behaviour of a child or an organization, there has to be a consequence. If we hire people for bilingual positions and we tell them: ``You can have this position even if you are not bilingual'', we are sending a very strong message. That is why I emphasize this in our report.
After 35 years of official bilingualism we have to eliminate non-imperative staffing. It is only then that civil servants will understand that language skills are like any other skill. If it is essential, then it is not incidental or marginal with respect to the rest of the federal government.
In answer to your question, I would say that when the government decides to send a clear message to its employees — who are hired to become deputy ministers or senior public servants in Ottawa — that they must be bilingual, then behaviours will change. People will start learning French or English, depending on the case, much earlier on in their careers.
The federal government made the decision this year in investing more in French- and English-language schools so that our young people become bilingual. Let us invest in them and let us recruit young people who are bilingual. I think that is the only way to improve the situation.
Senator Léger: After 35 years, anything official that comes from the federal government should be in both official languages. Even if the area or the other language represents 2 per cent or less. Anything that comes from the federal government and goes into the provinces should automatically be in both languages. It seems that this criteria only applies when the criteria of 5,000 French-speaking people is met.
I am thinking of what happened in 1997. This has perhaps changed but I doubt it. I had the opportunity of being godmother to a Canadian National Defence ship. There were 12 ships. Only two ships, the one from Moncton and the one from Shawinigan, were baptised in both French and English. All the others were baptised, champagne and all, in one language only.
Ms. Adam: You could have certainly filed a complaint with the Commissioner's Office. They were supposed to do it in both official languages. Any government publication must be in both official languages, such as sites, et cetera.
The issue of significant demand that you are raising involves areas of our country where there must be a specific number of minority language speakers to justify a service.
The Chairman: I would like to end this first round with a brief question. My question does not necessarily deal with the report. Should the federal government go at times against its own national policies in order to encourage certain local projects for the advancement of linguistic minorities?
For example, at one time the Association franco-culturelle de Yellowknife wanted to acquire some land to build a cultural centre. The land was sold to wealthier private interests and the association invoked section 41.
Ms. Adam: This issue is currently the subject of an investigation by my office. It is therefore difficult for me to discuss this matter at this point and time.
Senator Gauthier: I would now like to deal with each one of your recommendations. You recommend an evaluation framework be established to assess measures taken. What do you mean by this?
Ms. Adam: We need to clearly establish standards and indicators that will be used to evaluate results. The Official Languages Action Plan only exists for one reason: to correct the situation.
There is a danger sometimes with respect to activities within the federal government. Sometimes I say to my staff, it is easy to keep busy, but are your activities useful and are they bringing results?
Therefore, this framework would specify not only the expected activities, goals and results. The framework would also provide for the person accountable for correcting the situation.
Senator Gauthier: You also recommend that the committee convene each year the key individuals responsible for the implementation of the Action Plan. Would you agree to first convening the clerk of the Privy Council?
Ms. Adam: Certainly.
Senator Gauthier: Then other ministers could appear, for example, Canadian Heritage, Francophonie, Official Languages, the Treasury Board. There is a long list. Perhaps we could start at the top, with the clerk of the Privy Council? This person has a certain amount of standing amongst public servants.
Ms. Adams: I agree.
Senator Gauthier: Your third recommendation suggest a strategy to enhance linguistic duality in cultural activities and within the public service. I agree with this recommendation. However, how could one design such an action plan?
Ms. Adam: A review and modernization of policies and regulations regarding official languages is currently taking place. The Treasury Board Secretariat has worked on that review.
We have realized that current policies are very complex and very complicated for people to implement. It would be easier to implement improves and simplified policies.
Of course we need to work on eliminating non-imperative staffing. This should be gradual.
We spoke about a misunderstanding on the part of our civil servants. This study is worth reading because it deals with civil servants attitudes and their perception of linguistic duality and the official languages program. There is a strong need for awareness raising and training. How can people responsible for implementing the government official languages policies do so if they are not sufficiently aware? There is a problem in that area.
Senator Gauthier: My last question deals with the reference group.
The Chairman: I am sorry, honourable senator, but the bells are ringing. I must give the floor to Senator Comeau.
Senator Gauthier: I will come back to this in another meeting.
Senator Comeau: Often when we are talking about the Maritimes, people in Ottawa do not realize that many francophones live in provinces other than New Brunswick. For example, they do not realize that there are francophone communities in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Similarly, people in New Brunswick do not realize that there are francophone communities in other areas. At certain events in the Maritimes, Radio-Canada and RDI are present. L'Acadie nouvelle probably does not realize that there is a francophone community in Nova Scotia. People tend to have a more centralist perception.
Ms. Adam, could you, on behalf of your investigators in Moncton, provide us with an update of the situation in the Atlantic provinces? Depending on the complaints received, do these investigators visit regions outside of Moncton? The number of complaints is not necessarily indicative of the size of the problem. Sometimes the number can indicate that the problem is much more serious than we thought.
Consequently, it would be important to understand what circumstances prompt investigators to go outside of the province. How do you assess the performance of your employees in Moncton? This is not about whether or not they need to remain in Moncton during the visit from a Quebec representative or the consul general of France, or whether or not the RDI news network is there. We would like to know why the investigators are focussing on New Brunswick, without considering the situation outside of the province.
Ms. Adam: I will make a personal commitment to answer this question. Your question is very appropriate. I will put these questions to the institutions concerned and be in a position to produce a report for you. I will certainly be asking my Moncton office to prepare a report on their activities in the other Maritime provinces. There are regional and liaison investigation duties. The liaison duties pertain to federal institutions and the two major language communities. I will provide you with this information.
Senator Comeau: I have never met them in my region at least.
Senator Lapointe: This is more of a comment than a question. Indeed, it is an observation. During my past three years in the Senate, I have noted that many anglophone senators do not speak French. Nevertheless, the majority of francophone senators do make an effort to speak English.
Accordingly, I have written a brief sentence that, to some extent, summarizes my impressions. Ms. Adam, attaining some linguistic balance is a significant challenge for you, and you have my admiration. My sentence is humorous and a little bit sarcastic: ``I understand English, but it is the English that I do not understand.''
Senator Corbin: Would you have any objections if we were to summon your Moncton office director to appear? In this manner, we would be in a better position to understand the situation in the Maritimes.
Ms. Adam: Ultimately, I am the one responsible for the office.
Senator Corbin: This is always a matter for the senior staff, it is bureaucratic. You talked about antennas. We have noted that there are some unresolved problems that are festering. This is happening in our regions and we want to know more about it. Your are the commissioner, you have access to all kinds of files. Why would you resist our request to interview the director of the Moncton office?
Ms. Adam: I am not resisting. But you do understand that when things are not running well in the office, I am the one who is responsible.
Senator Corbin: Ultimately, it is you and you will always be in that position.
Ms. Adam: I have no intention of delegating this duty to my subordinates. If you are dissatisfied about what is going on in your region, you should raise the matter with me. Perhaps you know about certain files of which I am not aware.
Senator Corbin: Senator Comeau has issues that he raises at every meeting.
The Chairman: I would like to add that the Senate committee will be travelling out West at the end of the month and will be meeting with the people who are responsible for the regional offices. Depending on the political providence, we will be travelling out East in early 2004. We will certainly be meeting with the people running the regional offices, including the Atlantic office.
Ms. Adam: I would like to repeat to the committee that I am very open to hearing the members. Senator Comeau has expressed his concerns on several occasions. I am listening. If there are any concrete examples, I would like to hear about them. I would like to hear about these problems. I have always been very open and I would be very surprised to learn that senators felt that either I or my staff did not listen carefully.
The Chairman: That being said, I do congratulate you, Ms. Adams. As the chair of the committee, I would like to thank you and state that I have always received very good answers from both you and your staff as well.
The committee adjourned.