Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 7 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 8, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the Main Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I remind honourable senators that the field of interest of this committee is accountability, transparency and government spending, either directly through the Estimates or indirectly through bills.
[Translation]
On Wednesday, October 20, 2004, our committee was authorized to study and report on the projected expenditures of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.
[English]
This week, we are hearing from a number of officers of Parliament. This committee has already heard from the Auditor General. We understand that other Senate committees may hear regularly from some offices regarding their mandate and the programs they deliver. However, this committee is interested in dollars and cents. We are here to discuss the Main Estimates and how they allocate the funds.
This morning we are pleased to have with us Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer.
[Translation]
Mr. Kingsley was appointed Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada in February 1990. He was responsible for administering federal elections, the 1992 referendum, the general elections of 1993, 1997 and 2000, as well as several by- elections.
[English]
As Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley has overseen the development of the National Register of Electors — the permanent voters list — and the introduction of computer use in all areas of electoral administration from digitalized geo-cartography to local field office communications and management.
Honourable senators we are interested in posing questions to Mr. Kingsley about spending, costs, estimates and what is actually done with taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. Kingsley, please proceed.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for this opportunity to provide all the information to the committee that it wishes to obtain in its consideration of the best use of dollars for taxpayers.
I am pleased to appear before you to discuss matters relating to the 2004-05 estimates for my office. I am accompanied by Ms. Diane Davidson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel, and Ms. Janice Vézina, Senior Director of Election Financing and Corporate Services.
First, I will introduce my office on the basis of its funding. Second, I will outline the 2004-05 estimates, including the costs related to the national register of electors, then the cost of the 38th General Election. Finally, I will inform the committee about the audits of the activities of my office by the office of the Auditor General of Canada, the very thing about which you are concerned this morning.
The Chief Electoral Officer, as the Chair mentioned, is appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons and may be removed from office only for cause by a joint address of the Senate and the House of Commons — an important matter to remember. That resolution, by the way, has been unanimous for all five occupants of the position, and I am the fifth, obviously.
Unlike the other officers of Parliament, the Chief Electoral Officer holds office until the age of 65 unless, of course, there is removal for cause. That has not occurred so far.
The Chief Electoral Officer directs and supervises the conduct of elections and performs the duties and functions necessary for the administration of the Canada Elections Act. This is reflected through the three strategic outcomes as stated in our 2004-05 Report on Plans and Priorities. The first is the delivery of federal elections, by-elections and referendums as well as the administration of political financing provisions — and they are major. The second is the achievement and maintenance of a state of readiness to deliver electoral events — and that is complex. The third is the provision of timely and high-quality public education and information programs on electoral matters, particularly to those most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights. That is almost a direct quote from the statute.
The duties of the Chief Electoral Officer have become more numerous and complex over time. The incumbent is now responsible for the Canada Elections Act, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Referendum Act. The duties under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act were pursued by two different committees of the House of Commons during the last exercise.
Elections Canada is responsible for all aspects of the conduct of elections. Apart from the three strategic outcomes that I mentioned earlier, my office also has the following main responsibilities. First, the office is responsible to ensure Canadian citizens are registered to vote, both on an ongoing basis through the national register of electors and during elections through revision. Second, the office is responsible to oversee the political finance provisions for political entities.
My office has continued to maintain and enhance professionalism in all these areas.
The Chief Electoral Officer also appoints the Broadcasting Arbitrator who is responsible for apportioning free and paid political broadcasting time. Under the referendum law, this is a vital function, as is the other, but people forget about the referendum law.
The Commissioner of Canada Elections is responsible for investigating and prosecuting any complaint under the act. It is a unique feature not found anywhere else in the world that the commissioner, appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, prosecutes before the courts of the land.
There are two budgetary authorities that fund the activities of the Chief Electoral Officer. This is peculiar and particular to the Chief Electoral Officer. The first is an administrative vote, which is an annual appropriation, called Vote 25 in the books, to cover the salaries of permanent employees. Treasury Board determines the level of funding for Vote 25. We have carefully chosen these words: cover the salaries of permanent employees.
Vote 25 amounts to $13.2 million for the salaries of approximately 210 full-time employees. An increase of $5.6 million was received through the 2004-05 Supplementary Estimates (A). This increase covers the salaries of 120 permanent employees, thus an increase in the number of permanent employees. The additional funds are necessary to implement and maintain services improvements on an ongoing basis between electoral events as well as to address the changes to political financing introduced by Bill C-24. Those changes were major.
The second budgetary authority is statutory. It draws directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The estimates for the statutory authority vary from one fiscal year to the next and reflect the particular activities my office must carry out under the legislation for the conduct of electoral events, including by-elections, referendums and the decennial redistribution of electoral districts. It also includes two other statutory items. One is very minor, that being the salary of the Chief Electoral Officer, and the other is the funds required for the employee benefit plans.
The statutory authority granted by electoral legislation is unique to the Chief Electoral Officer. It was developed in large part because the timing of elections is not known in advance, and precise annual budgetary allocations for that purpose cannot be determined in advance for that same reason. It is also imperative for the conduct of an effective, fair and impartial electoral process that funding be insulated from executive control — hence, the need for that statutory authority. For these reasons, the statutory authority allows for spending without further reference to Parliament, although all the forecast and actual spending are reported to Parliament through Treasury Board. I appear every year on this matter before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I look forward to appearing before this committee at any time in respect of this or any other matter.
Our 2004-05 fiscal budget under both statutory authorities was estimated at $37 million, for a total budget of just over $50 million.
[Translation]
The major items in our 2004-2005 Estimates under both Vote 25 and the statutory authorities include: $9.1 million for information technology programs; $3.9 million for maintaining event-readiness activities; $2.8 million for Employee Benefit Plans; $2.4 million for electoral geography program; $2.3 million for ongoing public education and information programs, which I had referred to earlier; $7.5 million for other ongoing costs, primarily salaries, training and travel, and rental of equipment and office space — these are salaries for non full-time workers; and $6 million for the newly legislated annual allowances to qualifying political parties. These allowances are paid out quarterly, but for January 2004 they were paid in full to provide transitional funding for political parties. And last, $6.2 million was set aside for the National Register of Electors.
The register contained an estimated 95 percent of electors on the preliminary list of electors for the 38th general election. On February 25, 2004 I informed the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the savings provided by the National Register of Electors. We currently estimate that the register has saved $31 million at the provincial and municipal levels, over and above the $60 million net savings at the federal level. If one includes British Columbia's projected $11 million savings, the estimated total cost avoidance to date resulting from the National Register of Electors amounts to over $100 million. With each election, an extra $30 million net savings can be added, through the use of the National Register of Electors.
Estimates are prepared under the assumption we are mandated to maintain election-ready status at all times. Although the estimates process does not predict an election call. At the time of preparing the 2004-05 Estimates, we did not know that a general election would be called on May 23, 2004. Therefore, the estimates do not include the costs associated with the 38th general election.
The estimated cost of the 2004 general federal election is $221 million. In addition, $58 million is estimated for the reimbursement of election expenses to registered political parties and candidates, that amount is $13 million higher than originally expected.
Although our original estimates factored in changes to the act under Bill C-24, it was not possible to accurately predict the impacts that all the changes taken together would have on spending at the 2004 general election.
Finally, I wish to inform the committee that the Auditor General of Canada recently completed an audit of the transactions and financial statements of my office as of March 31, 2004. I have attached as an annex to my speaking notes a copy of the audit report signed by the Auditor General, which was submitted to the Speaker of the other chamber. At my invitation, the Auditor General is currently conducting a performance audit of my office on the federal electoral process. It is expected that the report will be included in the Auditor General's report of November 2005.
Thank you once again for having invited us to appear before you. We are now ready to take your questions and hope to answer them to the best of our knowledge.
[English]
The Chairman: I am interested in the cost savings for the register. You said $31 million at the provincial and municipal levels and $60 million at the federal level. What kind of evaluation was done to determine the effectiveness? How did you arrive at those figures? Was it done by outside accountants? What methodologies were used?
Mr. Kingsley: I will ask Ms. Vézina to respond to that.
Ms. Janice Vézina, Senior Director, Election Financing and Corporate Services, Elections Canada: When the register was created, a business case was prepared that was used to brief Parliament on the potential savings of the register. That business case looked forward about 30 years from the time that the proposed legislation was being tabled to show and to track what we thought the potential savings would be. That has been our baseline in terms of determining the cost-effectiveness of the registry of general electors. It was the original business case that was developed as the proposed legislation was tabled in Parliament.
Senator Ringuette: I find it most interesting to talk about the national register because I have never received a favourable comment from electors about this list. In my area, during the last election in June, many voters were not on the list. There were comments from people of one small town who had to vote in a nearby town because they were registered incorrectly on the list for the wrong town. I have never witnessed so many voters disgruntled with the fact that their names were not on the right voters' list. It was not because these people had moved because many of them had lived in the same place for 20 and 30 years.
I question the process. Mistakes in the permanent list can cause some people not to vote who had always voted in the past — people who would normally be present on voting day to assume their democratic right. Certainly, the current system is a deterrent to voter turnout. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley, do you agree with that comment?
Mr. Kingsley: No, I disagree, Mr. Chairman. I would like to explain why I disagree.
Mr. Kingsley: For this election, the register worked better than at any time before. There were significantly fewer complaints from electors than at any other time. We utilized it for the 2000 general election and effectively in 1997. Even though it was the first use of the register, it was also the result of door-to-door enumeration. Effectively this was the second time, and we had significantly improved it and we know that we can improve it further.
I would like to explain why there were some problems this time. This was broached to me by the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs as well. I wrote to all members of Parliament to ask to be apprised of any problems that they have with the system; we received about 35 letters of complaint about this. The complaints dealt mainly with the locations of polling stations and not necessarily with the list.
There were problems with the list principally in rural areas, because with redistribution when the line cut across rural areas, we had not finished the georeferencing of addresses. Until they finish the 911 coding for some provinces such as New Brunswick and others, we will not get a perfect fit. I suspect that within the next 10 years this will be solved across Canada and we will have over 93 per cent of all addresses georeferenced, which means we will know exactly where it sits on a map so no matter how we cut the line we know that the house will go there.
The subsequent difficulty was that in some places because the maps were being cut that way, some polls were placed in a very awkward position for them and people had to go by another poll to do this. The returning officers are looking into that right now as a result of the complaints we received.
I will also mention that when you do door-to-door you get 95 per cent. There is always 5 per cent who do not register, even if you try to blow their house down. You can breathe as hard as you want, they will not get on the list. We have demonstrated this time and time again in Canada. We had 82 per cent minimum that were at the right address, that is to say, a 13-per-cent difference. They are people who had moved. We have them on the register.
I know the number may sound large, but we had approximately 100,000 addresses to which we could not deliver mail, out of 13 million addresses. Even the private sector considers this top notch. We are whittling that down as 911 moves across the land.
The Chairman: Is that in any particular region?
Mr. Kingsley: Rural addressing is the issue.
The Chairman: By region, by province?
Mr. Kingsley: We know it by region and province. It is the rural areas, the remote areas especially where this is a problem because Canada has not yet finalized establishing a 911 network for those rural and remote areas so the ambulance drivers know where to go exactly. We have it in the cities, which is over 75 per cent of all the addresses.
Senator Ringuette: I would like to differ on that. I come from New Brunswick and New Brunswick was the first province to have every square inch of the province under the 911 system, and still we got all these comments. I stand by the comments that I have heard from the voters. When they show up at their polling station to vote, they are not on the voters' list. They have been voting, most of them, for 20 and 25 years. They just say, “Huh.” People are very sensitive to this. They say, “My name is not there. They do not want me to vote. Okay, fine, I am going home.” They will not go from one poll to another to find out where their name is. Some did go from one community to the other to vote. I stand by what I said. The National Register of Electors is a deterrent factor to the low turnout on the voters' list.
Mr. Kingsley, do you remember how much it cost to do the 1993 election?
Mr. Kingsley: No. I do remember that door-to-door was about $65 million, but I do not remember the total cost.
Senator Ringuette: I mean the cost of that election.
Mr. Kingsley: The total election? Ms Vézina can look into that to respond further. I would like to respond further that there is polling-day registration in this country. If your name is not on the list and you show up at the polls we will register you on the spot. This is the ultimate failsafe in any kind of a system that has a permanent list.
Number two, we still do door-to-door. We do it for 10 per cent of the houses where there had been movement. For the take-up rate, if I remember correctly, we had about 280,000 people out of one million who actually registered at the door. These are people whose doors we knocked on and they responded at this very low rate. If we had to do door-to- door across the country at this very low rate, this committee would be begging me to establish a permanent list of electors.
Senator Ringuette: Can you tell me roughly, what was the cost of the 1993 election?
Ms. Vézina: It was approximately $200 million. That reflects an adjustment for the fact that we had re-used the voters' list from the referendum in all provinces except Quebec. There was a savings built in. If you adjust the cost for that factor, if we were to have done a full enumeration it would have been approximately $200 million.
Senator Ringuette: We have $200 million for 1993. We have $221 million for 2004. In 1993 we had a door-to-door full-fledged enumeration system and in 2003 we had a mixture — from your comments earlier — the permanent voters' list and some kind of door-to-door enumeration. Bottom line in real dollars, there is not a lot of difference in cost going from $200 million to $221 million.
The Chairman: I would like to ask Mr. Kingsley to explain. There is quite a time difference. There would be administrative differences. Could you explain the differences to us, please?
Ms. Vézina: The differences primarily relate to inflation, the cost of increases since 1993. In addition, the increase in population drives up the cost of the election.
We have had an increase in the number of electoral districts, so you have a number of fixed costs that accrue for each riding. In 1993 we had 295 ridings. The last election we had 308, an increase of 13 electoral districts.
In addition, we have had legislative change that has caused increases in the cost of the election. The other element is the introduction of technology. This was done partially in response to an audit by the Auditor General. In 1989, there was a comprehensive audit which made a number of recommendations related to the lack of the introduction of technology. That took a number of years to accomplish. That, in itself, is costly to maintain.
Senator Ringuette: What you are saying is that the difference in cost is the inflation rate and population, and the fact that we have 13 additional federal ridings from 1993 to 2004. I am looking at the numbers. It is still roughly around $800,000 per federal riding to have an election, whether we have a permanent registry list or not.
I know that my colleagues have questions, thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley, when you were making your presentation you talked about the fact that one of the powers you have is to appoint the Commissioner of Canada Elections who does enforcement and so on. Does the commissioner's budget come under your budget? If so, what is the budget for the last fiscal year and what is the projected budget? Can you tell us a little bit about how many complaints went to court and what the costs were? If you do not have all those numbers now they can be submitted later but I would like to know something of the budget of the Commissioner of Canada Elections. Could you give us a general comment and then send us specifics?
Mr. Kingsley: Certainly. The budget is entirely contained within my budget. We can try to find out what the amount was that is attributable to the exercise of his office. Is one of you ready to deal with that or are you ready to deal with the number of complaints instead?
Ms. Diane Davidson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel, Elections Canada: I could answer the question as to the number of complaints. On an ongoing basis I can say that we have approximately 600 complaints per year relating to offences having to do with campaign financing legislation, et cetera.
For the election we had over 400 complaints. I do not have the numbers of prosecutions, and we could provide that to the committee.
The Chairman: I am particularly interested in learning about the costs.
The second thing, Mr. Kingsley, you were talking about Bill C-24, and when you made your presentation to us you said that Bill C-24 brought major changes and major new costs. Could you tell us about some of the new costs, in terms of your administration, that this bill brought on?
Mr. Kingsley: I can describe them. It must be remembered that this is a piece of legislation that changed the whole basis of financing and eliminated, for all intents and purposes, or significantly reduced, corporate and union contributions to parties and to candidates. It also brought forward the idea that local riding associations could be registered with Elections Canada.
The Chairman: Why would that be an additional cost to you?
Mr. Kingsley: We did not register with local riding associations before, so we have to receive the applications. I will ask Ms. Vézina to explain the numbers.
Ms. Vézina: We had estimated the ongoing increasing costs, due to the implementation of Bill C-24 internally at Elections Canada, to be some $3 million a year. In addition, we incurred a one-time cost of approximately $1.45 million to implement the bill, and that included development of systems, the ability to publish the returns on our website, et cetera. In addition to that we have the quarterly allowance, which works out to $1.75 per vote to qualifying parties, and that is currently $23 million a year. That $23 million is now added to our budget annually. That is one of the major cost elements.
In addition, in terms of the cost of the election, Bill C-24 is increasing the cost there as the reimbursement to candidates has gone from 50 per cent to 60 per cent of eligible expenses. In terms of political parties, the reimbursement of eligible election expenses has gone from 22.5 per cent to 60 per cent at this last election. It will drop to 50 per cent at future elections, but for this one election it is at 60 per cent. We have seen a significant increase in the money that is flowing out to political entities.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: When you were appointed Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, you carried out sweeping changes to this institution. The goal was to reach out to aboriginal peoples and other minority groups. It has always been presumed that these people were not interested in Canadian elections.
With the new measures that you have taken, have you noticed that aboriginal peoples are showing greater interest in the elections? Has there been any difficulty in persuading them to vote? Do you see this as a waste of time and energy? Do you think that it is difficult to convince these people to exercise their fundamental right to vote?
Mr. Kingsley: We have made efforts in reaching out to this country's minority groups as well as young people. The act stipulates that I must try and reach out to groups that have particular difficulties in taking part in the electoral process. With respect to young people, since the last general election of 2000, we noticed that it was essentially young people who were avoiding the polling stations. Canadians who were used to voting had no trouble voting.
In 2004, there was perhaps a slightly higher number of people who did not vote for all sorts of reasons. During the last election, we noticed that more television shows tended to play up the presence of young people in elections than previously. This surge stirred up a certain reaction among young people. We were able to track the voter turnout among young people during the last election. Approximately 37 per cent of young people voted for the very first time. In theory, this figure is less than the 50-per-cent voter turnout rate one generation ago.
Therefore, we have not completed a thorough study of this subject and we must continue. It is impossible for a Chief Electoral Officer to lose the hope of increasing voter turnout. This would go against the very nature of the position and would warrant immediate resignation.
With respect to aboriginal groups, we have worked with four main aboriginal groups. Specifically, I had the opportunity to meet with young aboriginals and I have every reason to hope that their participation will increase among the four aboriginal groups. I would like to emphasize to the committee that a resolution was adopted recently by the Assembly of First Nations, with Chief Phil Fontaine. This resolution authorizes the Assembly of First Nations to work with Elections Canada in establishing training and information programs. We will try to do so for the next general election. In fact, I will be meeting with Chief Fontaine at 2:30 p.m. this afternoon to follow up on this initiative.
We obviously recognize the importance for many aboriginals to elect more aboriginals to the House of Commons in order to advance their rights. The very essence of a democracy is found in the fact that people can be elected to the House of Commons. Citizens carry out their aspirations through elected officials.
With respect to minority groups, we led a major advertising campaign in the hope of reaching out to these groups and I intend to deploy even greater efforts during the next election. I can show you newspapers published in languages other than French and English, which target this country's minority groups, newspapers in which we placed ads in some 30 languages. Our brochures are available in aboriginal languages and in minority languages. Our advertising also appears on stations which they watch. We have made considerable efforts in this regard, and I am convinced that they will bear fruit over time.
The entire issue of voter turnout is complex, it is an important issue and we cannot abandon our efforts nor lower the Canadian flag confronted with this phenomenon. In my opinion, measures that we have initiated are beginning to produce positive results.
Senator Ferretti Barth: I represent more than 14,000 senior citizens who live on the island of Montreal and in the suburbs. Nobody offered these senior citizens a ride to the polling stations nor offered to accompany them to vote. Cultural groups, especially newcomers, become Canadian citizens because the Department of Citizenship and Immigration encourages them to do so. During the last election, no organization was set up to help these senior citizens living in cultural communities. I find it terrible that you would spend money on things you deem a priority without any concern for senior citizens who are an absolute priority. These people represent a group of individuals who, if they are well informed and supported, will vote. I would like to ask you to consider senior citizens.
Mr. Kingsley: Senior citizens are the ones who vote in the greatest numbers in Canada. We set up mobile voting stations wherever possible. A person who is not able to come out and vote may call the electoral administration and we will make sure that the person can vote from home.
Senator Ferretti Barth: There has to be closer ties with the communities and information must be distributed in several languages. We serve some 200 homeless people each month. Nobody votes. Why? Because your institution does not have a handle on this social situation and does not reach out to those people.
Mr. Kingsley: I will take all that into consideration.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Many people travelled to the Ukraine during the last elections. Is it true that Elections Canada is participating in elections in other countries?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Who draws up the list of people who make up these delegations and what are the costs related to travelling abroad?
Mr. Kingsley: These decisions are not made by Elections Canada. I am not the one who has the money nor am I the one who spends it. Decisions are made either by CIDA or an organization called CANADEM. Elections Canada has nothing to do with that.
[English]
Senator Murray: Mr. Kingsley, I had not focused on this until I read your statement today, but I see you hold office until the age of 65, so you have 25 years to go?
Mr. Kingsley: That is about it. You are a sweet man.
Senator Murray: I see that you have been in Jordan recently in connection with the Iraqi election. You are not tempted to move to one of those countries and accept that challenge on a permanent basis, are you?
Mr. Kingsley: I will resist the temptation.
Senator Murray: Good. When I file my income tax return every year I check off the box provided to give permission to Revenue Canada to share my name and address with Elections Canada. I do not want you to lose track of me in case a political party should materialize that I feel I could support.
How do the income tax returns compare in terms of other sources of information that you have?
Mr. Kingsley: The income tax returns have an 84-per-cent positive take-off rate. That is to say 84 per cent of taxpayers say “yes.”
Senator Murray: Looking at the total-voters list, what proportion of the names on the voters list is accounted for by the information you get from income tax returns versus various provincial and other federal sources? Do you know that?
Mr. Kingsley: I know it but I cannot remember it. I will write to the committee to tell you the exact number, what is the match between the two.
Senator Murray: Tell us about the other sources, for the record.
Mr. Kingsley: The other sources are the motor vehicle registries in the provinces. We have nine doing that. Manitoba is not doing it yet.
Senator Murray: By “doing it,” you mean not sharing the information?
Mr. Kingsley: Not sharing the information. The territories are. We also have the civil registries for the deceased. For that we have all the provinces and all the territories, and Manitoba is involved in that as well. We also have the post office registration of moves.
Senator Murray: Canada Post shares that information with you?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, we buy it from them.
Senator Murray: Is that information for sale from Canada Post to others outside the government?
Mr. Kingsley: It is not, unless it is specifically permitted. The law says it must be the way. In terms of what is shared with us, the people who buy the service must say they want their information shared with us. There is a consent box for Elections Canada there as well.
Senator Murray: Other federal sources?
Mr. Kingsley: I cannot think of any other federal source. Citizenship and Immigration Canada provides information for new citizens. They must agree, and their percentage take-up is over 90.
Senator Murray: It would be interesting to see, in terms of the overall voters list, what proportion of the names in the list are accounted for by the various sources.
Mr. Kingsley: I would be pleased to provide that to you.
Senator Murray: I do not have the act in front of me, but you have the authority, as I understand it, to conduct door-to-door enumeration in some cases. You referred to that in your answers to questions from Senator Ringuette. What is the provision in the act? On what basis do you make the decision where and when to do this?
Mr. Kingsley: The provision is one that refers to what we call targeted revision. It is part of the revision process. We identify areas of high mobility, new development areas, and student residences. We also identify a fourth, which is what I will call, for lack of charity, retirement homes, because there is high mobility automatically there. We identify them with the returning officers and they send revising agents there immediately, because we know there will be major changes there. If it is an apartment block in the city, we know there will be major changes and we send in revising agents.
Senator Murray: I remember making the argument myself, probably borrowed it from you, that the permanent list was important because it was so difficult to get enumerators to go around and, once appointed, to get them into those big apartment blocks in the cities. That was one of the reasons for getting away from door-to-door enumeration, as I recall it.
Mr. Kingsley: That problem still prevails. In some places, even though we do targeted revision, it is not always easy to do even that.
Senator Murray: Someone suggested there may be a Charter problem there, that those voters who were not subject to a targeted revision would claim that their rights to be counted as voters were being infringed upon by your selection, and that section of the act posed a Charter problem. Do you understand what I am saying?
Mr. Kingsley: I understand it, and I will allow myself what Senator Ringuette said a little while back; I do not share that view.
Senator Murray: In your opening statement, you point out that you had a supplementary estimate in 2004-05 of $5.6 million. This increase covers the salaries of 120 permanent employees. You begin by saying that Vote 25 was $13.2 million for the salaries of approximately 210 full-time employees. Then you have a supplementary estimate to cover the salaries of 120 permanent employees. You added 120 to your roster, did you?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Senator Murray: “In order to implement and maintain service improvements on an ongoing basis,” your statement says, “between electoral events, as well as to address the changes to political financing introduced by Bill C-24.” The changes to political financing probably account for most of those additional bodies?
Ms. Vézina: Bill C-24 accounted for 35 of those bodies. The remainder were primarily people who had been term employees at Elections Canada and had been working on various projects. There was a change in Treasury Board policy on long-term specified period employees so that after a certain number of years as a term employee they would automatically become indeterminate employees. The 85 that remained were in that category.
Senator Murray: Mr. Kingsley, in your reports from time to time you suggest other areas that you should be authorized to regulate or to administer through Elections Canada. The one that comes to mind is appointment of returning officers, which is now done by Orders in Council. You have made some criticism of the quality of those and expressed the view that things would be better done if that came under your authority.
Refresh my memory because I do not have your report here. Are there other areas that you are not now authorized to regulate or administer that you want to get into?
Mr. Kingsley: I am in the throes of preparing a report that I will table to Parliament, to both the House of Commons and the Senate, where I will make a slew of recommendations about improvements to the statutes for its better administration. I would not characterize any of those as necessarily being areas where the Chief Electoral Officer is not involved and would wish to get involved. They would be improvements to the process.
Senator Murray: Our briefing note talks about your responsibilities and the legislation, then registration of political parties and third parties engaged in election advertising, and of electoral district associations. That means every political party that has a district association and leadership contestants, nomination contestants of registered parties. This is an enormous undertaking on your part. I wonder how it is going and how you monitor all that. How can you be sure that you are able to monitor it as thoroughly as you are required to do? In another life 25 years ago, when Senator Oliver and I belonged to the same political party, I was the national chairman of the campaign and Senator Oliver was my principal legal adviser. Not only did he keep us both out of jail, we both went to the Senate after that. He will tell you, I think, it was certainly my impression that in getting on for 300 constituencies, for every candidate our party would have to have a legal adviser. Almost all of these people were, and probably still are, volunteers. They do it pro bono. While Senator Oliver and people like him in other political parties who were at the national field tried to instruct these people in what was expected of them and what the law required and so forth, our impression was to a great extent these people kept the act in their desk drawer and when a problem arose they reached for the act and tried to sort the problem out. I do not think that is an unfair statement about your confreres at the bar, senator. I wonder if what we are talking about here is an army of volunteers in a number of political parties and how it is possible for them to abide by all the regulations, requirements, leadership contests and nomination contests in their own parties in the riding and so forth. How is it realistically possible for you unless you hire an army of inspectors to do that supervision effectively? Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Kingsley: The army is what we described, 35 people, and it is doing an incredible job. At the last advisory committee of political parties we reported back on all of our performance under Bill C-24 and all the parties agreed that this was a very successful implementation of a major new piece of legislation. They have registered 1,058 local riding associations with no problem. There has been only one leadership contest under the new rules so far — for what we would consider major parties at this stage — but the implementation has gone exceedingly smoothly. Part of the reason for this is that we have made the tools available electronically. You can file electronically for all these things. We have also made all the rules evident to everyone. We have produced brochures for each facet of what is required. There are training programs that were organized, that are being organized again. We have even broadened our training programs so that now when a political party has a convention we will set a training program in the vicinity so people can attend it as well. It has been a great success.
The Chairman: I have to ask you to end your answer. We have less than five minutes and there are two more senators who want to pose questions to you. Our next witness is here already.
Senator Day: We in the Senate have a diverging view on the role of the Senate vis-à-vis your office and I would like you to comment. Have you done any thinking about whether you feel we should have a role or not? I can give you two examples that might help us focus. One of those is a recent case in New Brunswick under redistribution. The commission that was set up in New Brunswick to determine the boundaries of the new riding consisted of a former Chief Justice of Canada, a very well known lawyer in the province and another well known lawyer very familiar with municipal government. They made a decision considering all the factors and I have no doubt that they considered community of interest, but a case went to the federal court and a judge of the federal court sitting here in Ottawa made a decision that they did not consider community of interest.
That legislation to follow the decision of the judge is going through Parliament now. It has passed the House of Commons and is in the Senate. Do we, as a Senate, have a particular role in reviewing this? Have you done any thinking about balancing the interests here of whether the community of interest was indeed looked at? The House of Commons is particularly concerned about boundaries and ridings because they present themselves for election on a regular basis. Should they be more concerned about that, and therefore, because they have passed it should we just make sure that it fits generally into good legislation, as opposed to getting into the merits of the case?
Mr. Kingsley: In Canada, we have a bicameral system. As long as that exists the Senate has as much right to look at any piece of legislation that comes forward in as much detail as it wants as the House of Commons does. The reverse is also true even if a bill emanates from the Senate.
Senator Day: Under the Elections Act, do you report to the Senate as well as the House of Commons?
Mr. Kingsley: I report to Parliament, sir.
Senator Day: As you said earlier in this section, you report to both Speakers?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, I provide my reports directly to both when I write.
Senator Day: During an appearance before the House of Commons you were having an exchange with Michel Guimond, one of the vice-chairs of the standing committee.
I do not know if you were being sarcastic or if there was something behind your comment when you suggested that when legislation is introduced that maybe the Senate's role in considering whether you should continue in office should be removed and that the Senate would not have a role. I have the quote here if you need it to refresh your memory.
Mr. Kingsley: I know it by heart, sir.
The Chairman: Will you read the quote, please?
Senator Day: For the record, Mr. Kingsley is speaking to Michel Guimond.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that when you pass a bill allowing returning officers to be appointed and removed by the Chief Electoral Officer, you may also amend the legislation so that the Chief Electoral Officer can be removed through a vote of the House of Commons alone. Why not do that, if that is what is needed to ensure uniformity?
What was behind that?
Mr. Kingsley: What was behind that was the fact that the basic principle under our system of law is that he or she who appoints also disappoints, fires.
The Chairman: The Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Kingsley: Right.
I was saying to the committee that returning officers should be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer and they should be fired by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Senator Day: This is the point that my friend Senator Murray was talking about.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Therefore the chair of the committee and I think Mr. Guimond said, well, in that case, in order to be consistent, because you are appointed only by the House of Commons, when we remove you only the House of Commons should do that. I said if this is what you have to do to get the returning officers under the Chief Electoral Officer, go ahead and do it, but realizing that if they did that they would have to have this legislation passed by the Senate.
In the meantime I have written to Senator Joyal. I do not know what he intends to do with the letter but I do not think it is private. I have indicated to him what could be and should be revisited is how the Chief Electoral Officer is appointed. Perhaps the Senate should be involved in the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer and not just the House of Commons. Then you would have full consistency.
Senator Day: That is the other way to achieve uniformity.
Mr. Kingsley: That is right. That is exactly what I said to him. You must remember that when I appear before a committee I do not get pre-warning about the questions I will receive.
The Chairman: I am glad you came here and had an opportunity to explain that statement because it was very controversial in the Senate. A number of us were upset about it and I am glad you have had an opportunity to explain.
Mr. Kingsley: I appreciate the opportunity.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Day, for bringing it up.
Senator Day: In closing this one out, if and when your letter to Senator Joyal becomes public, could we give Mr. Guimond a copy to show him that you have another point of view?
Mr. Kingsley: I will meet with Senator Joyal very soon and I will ask him how widely I can distribute it and I can even provide it to The Hill Times.
Senator Harb: Due to time constraints I will combine my two questions into one. First, Mr. Kingsley, thank you very much for the tremendous amount of work you are doing, not only here but also internationally, along with your team.
My colleague, Senator Murray, asked a couple of questions that I was interested in. One was about the voters' list. I wanted to find out to what extent you compare the way we collect information with that of other democracies such as Australia. Second, I want to know whether you look at the telephone directories, say Bell Canada or the city directories, where they list the addresses, phone numbers and the name. Also what process is there to remove someone's name from the list? If somehow you were able to get someone's name but they wanted to remove their name from the list because they are anarchist and do not want to be part of the process, is there a mechanism in place? Finally, you spoke with my colleague, Senator Ferretti Barth, about seniors having the highest voter turnout. I am interested in hearing your comment about the lowest turnout, youth under the age of 25. Statistics indicate that 75 per cent of youth actually do not bother to vote at all. That is almost three out of every four youth do not bother to vote. I understand that the other House now is in the process of passing, or probably has already passed, the reduction of the voting age from18 to 16. One could be cynical and ask what is the point? If you reduce it from 18 to 16, in any event 75 per cent of them will not vote anyway.
Perhaps you could comment on those in general and as well, in specific terms.
Mr. Kingsley: With respect to youth turnout, one of the comments I made earlier was that at the last election we actually went into the boxes to find out who had voted, instead of doing a survey. It was 37 per cent of youth up to the age you mentioned, at least first-time youth, up to the age of 21 and a half. Even if you go to 25 it is still around the same number. It goes down slightly, by the way, if you include that upper portion in age, which is an interesting phenomenon, which would mean, then, that we may have been witnessing a generational thing.
What was the 75 before? This was a survey. You cannot compare the two because the methodologies are very different. They had different things to do.
As to how to get off the list, you write to Elections Canada and say: “I want to be off the list.” We send you a letter and tell you that you are off the list and we have put you on a list of people who are off the list. You can still vote at any time and when you get on the list we will remove you automatically off that list again so that you are never in our books on the list of electors. You are in our book as off the list of electors.
With respect to Australia, I have to be careful here. The Australians came to visit us to see how we do our lists. We are recognized to be running one of the best systems in the world. People are coming to us to find out how we do things. Obviously we learn when they come as well. There are things that I will propose, as I alluded to in my earlier remarks to Senator Murray. There are things we can do to improve that list. There are things on the check-off. For example, if you followed the testimony before other committee, if that box were two boxes, if we ask for Canadian citizenship separate from whether or not you agree to be on, we would pick up youth in droves that we do not pick up now. That is the very target we are talking about. I have met resistance at the revenue agency in this respect. They have reneged on a deal that they made with me at the last minute. If this had materialized we would have solved that problem.
I am in the throes of renegotiating it, getting it going again. Hopefully it will go. There are other things, too, that we will do. I intend to meet with the chief statistician to see what is possible. There is a national survey. There are two. There is one every five years now that applies to everyone. There may be things that we can do here that will increase the value and accuracy of the list even more.
The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley, Ms. Vézina and Ms. Davidson, I thank you for coming today. I particularly note that you say you look forward to appearing before this committee whenever the committee wishes. We would like perhaps to take you at your word and you can look forward to hearing from us again as our review of the estimates and spending continues.
Mr. Kingsley: It was my pleasure, and I wanted to say that I have always treasured my opportunities to speak before Senate committees. I have appeared before a goodly number of them. If this is a new committee before which you wish me to appear I will be more than happy to do that on as regular a basis as you wish. I have appreciated this opportunity very much.
The Chairman: Senators, if any of you have your BlackBerrys on during these hearings it affects the transmission. They should be turned off.
Honourable senators, we will now turn to our next witness, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam. Before her appointment as commissioner in 1999, Ms. Adam served as a professor of psychology at several institutions, including the University of Ottawa and Laurentian University in Sudbury.
This committee has already heard from the Auditor General. We understand that other Senate committees will hear from other programs regarding their mandate and the programs they deliver. This committee is interested in dollars and cents, and we are interested to hear information on how funds are allocated in regard to Main Estimates. Ms. Adam also serves as the Chair of the Forum of Canadian Ombudsmen. We look forward to hearing from you.
Ms. Dyane Adam, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Honourable senators, I am pleased to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
I am accompanied today by Louise Guertin, Director General of the Corporate Services Branch at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. My presentation today will cover three things: our mandate, our strategic objectives and achievements, and the way we report on our activities.
[Translation]
I am an officer of Parliament appointed for a period of seven years. The legislator entrusted me with the mandate to take all measures necessary to ensure the recognition of the status of both official languages in compliance with the spirit of the Official Languages Act.
Since the beginning of my term, my mission has been to act as an agent of change, which I accomplish through the following six rules: ombudsman, auditing, liaison, monitoring, promotion and education, court intervention. You will find these roles explained in the document made available to you.
[English]
First, our strategic objectives and achievement; the office of the commissioner works actively with federal institutions to ensure they have a better understanding of the importance of linguistic duality and improve their performance in this regard. Our objectives in 2004-05 meet the following strategic objectives: To ensure the equality of French and English in Parliament, the Government of Canada and institutions subjected to the act; secondly, to ensure that federal institutions contribute more actively to the development and vitality of the official language minority communities and; finally, to promote the equality of French and English, as a fundamental value of an increasingly diverse society. Our regional offices are our presence on the ground and contribute actively in all regions across Canada. With their finger on the pulse of linguistic communities they provide advice and information on language rights and work as agents of change within federal institutions and communities within each region.
[Translation]
Among our activities this year, I would like to highlight the following achievements: in my role as ombudsman, I handle an average of 1,200 complaints per year. To date this fiscal year, we have received approximately 850. We conducted a series of audits, studies and follow-ups this year pertaining notably to linguistic duality in international relations; language of work in the federal public service in the NCR; service to the public in bilingual postal outlets; evolution of Quebec's English-speaking community; use of minority press by federal institutions; and websites of Canada's diplomatic missions and foreign embassies in Canada.
That gives you an overview of the issues. It is said that official languages is an horizontal issue. Indeed, it affects all institutions and cuts across nearly all of the federal government's activities.
We are currently preparing report cards on official languages for 29 institutions. The results will be published in the next Annual Report. In terms of promotion, we followed up on a key symposium held in March 2004 entitled “Vision and Challenges in the 21st Century.” The challenge is to double the number of young Canadians with a working knowledge of their second official language by 2013. Furthermore, we rely on the media to communicate our messages. Every year, I give over 200 interviews and make 30 or so speeches.
In my court intervention role, I have intervened in five court proceedings over the past year relating to the implementation of the act. We monitor the implementation of the government's “Action Plan for Official Languages” closely, primarily in education, health, economic development, immigration, ; justice and youth. We are also monitoring the implementation of 11 recommendations made in our last annual report.
In particular, I recommended that the government clarify, through either legislation or regulation, the legal significance of part VII of the act, which deals with the promotion of English and French in Canadian society and the development of minorities. In fact, Bill S-3 — which I believe was passed unanimously by the Senate aims precisely that — the bill is currently before the House of Commons.
Lastly, we take an active interest in preparing legislation, regulations and policies in Canada. We have no hesitation in appearing as needed before the committees charged with reviewing them.
[English]
Finally, the way we report on our activities: I believe the integrity and transparency of our actions is very important, as is our duty to report to Parliament. This is why I asked the office of the Auditor General to audit our financial statements for 2003-04. I am proud to say that the Auditor General gave a clean opinion; excellent marks for performance on our financial statements. Our annual report is the guiding document that summarizes our actions. It identifies key issues and presents our key recommendations. Our next annual report will mark the 35th anniversary of the act and will take stock of official languages in Canada. Along with our studies and audits, it is distributed to members of Parliament. Furthermore, since two committees monitor the application of the act, I am doubly supported and accountable. I work closely with these committees, one Senate and one House of Commons, and I am called regularly to appear before them. My practice has been to also submit our budget to them and report on our activities on an annual basis.
We are well aware that linguistic duality cuts across nearly every activity of Canadian society. We must, therefore, monitor all aspects of the federal government's legislation and multifaceted activities on our linguistic and cultural ecology. What is important is the creation of an official language culture that encompasses attitudes, behaviours and values. This culture must be supported by a strong and consistent leadership.
It includes accountability at all levels as well as accurate and effective reporting mechanisms. As I indicated in my last annual report, action means getting results.
I will be pleased to answer questions.
The Chairman: Thank you for that excellent presentation. I was pleased to see that you had such a clean report from the Auditor General. You state that you are quite proud of the fact that she gave you that clean opinion. That is wonderful.
We have a list of senators who wish to pose questions. We will start with Senator Comeau.
[Translation]
Senator Comeau: The Auditor General, under the Act that creates her position, is an officer of the House of Commons. You are also an officer of Parliament; how is your role different because quite frankly, I cannot remember your specific mandate?
Ms. Adam: The mandate of the commissioner of official languages is to report to Parliament, therefore to both the Senate and the House of Commons. The appointment of the commissioner must be approved through a vote by both chambers.
Senator Comeau: We have just begun studying the bill which examines the foundations created under legislation or government decisions. We heard from Mr. Phillipson last week, a representative of the Foundation for Innovation of Canada.
First, I asked him whether or not the charter of his foundation respects the spirit of the Official Languages Act. Second, I asked him what respecting the spirit of the Official Languages Act means for him and whether or not we could rely on his good will when it comes to applying the act. Third, I asked if he wouldn't prefer having the commissioner for official languages study the matter to see if the Official Languages Act was properly applied.
I asked him if he was interested in inviting you. From what I gathered, you will probably receive an invitation. Did you receive this invitation?
Ms. Adam: No, not yet. I am delighted that you are impressing upon agencies, foundations and other organizations which serve the Government of Canada to call upon our services, because one of our roles is to promote and educate. More than 150 institutions are completely subject to the act. There are probably grey zones for other organizations. A lot of awareness must be raised within the entire machinery of the federal government in order to understand everybody's responsibilities. Our office exists for that very reason.
Senator Comeau: One of the priorities of the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance is to make sure that public finances are well managed. One of the shortcomings that we have identified with respect to foundations is that their investments are not audited by the Auditor General because of legal loopholes or otherwise. The same applies to your situation as well as that of other officers of Parliament such as the Privacy Commissioner, for example. The range of tasks that each and every one of the agencies is responsible for does not perhaps sufficiently delineate the grey zones that go unnoticed.
These foundations are often outside of our reach, but since we have to vote credits, how do we know if there are sufficient funds to meet the needs that these foundations were created to meet, in the spirit of transparency as required by taxpayers?
Ms. Adams: It is similar. There were several government changes. During the 1990s, my predecessor, Mr. Goldbloom, conducted a study that clearly demonstrated that the federal government has different ways of delivering services to Canadians, either through privatization or through the creation of foundations, and this had a huge negative impact on Canadian's linguistics rights. Take for example, airports.
When the House of Commons and the Senate amend or pass legislation to create new bodies responsible for providing services on behalf of the federal government, our commission recommends that all of these bodies be subject to the Official Languages Act and that it be clearly stipulated in the act itself. That is the reason why we appear more frequently before parliamentary committees when such an organization is created, either in the field of sports or any other, so as to emphasize the need to specify this in the act. Many problems are thus avoided later on. The same results are not obtained when an organization simply agrees to respect the spirit of the act when in fact it is not subject to it.
To get back to foundations, upon study of this issue, one cannot say that all foundations are fully subject to the act. One would have to review the act itself to determine if foundations are subject to the act or if they have linguistic obligations. In each case, one has to determine if these are federal institutions under the Official Languages Act.
For example, we received complaints filed against the Canada Millenium Scholarship Foundation, which manages millions of dollars on behalf of the federal government. Following an investigation at the time, we had determined that this foundation was subject to the act because it is defined as a federal institution in its legislative framework. This is not always the case depending on the bill that governs these foundations. This is where the grey zones lay and where a foundation could challenge any intervention on our part.
Senator Comeau: Could you provide us with a list of the foundations which were subject to the Act and those that are not. I have one last question. Very recently, we heard from the Minister of Publics Works who announced that he intended to review the sale of a number of buildings across Canada. Has a representative of the government or from Public Works asked you to assess the impact of the sale of these buildings? Can the names of these buildings be changed and the requirements pertaining to these buildings take on a whole different direction? Based on past experience, this type of privatization could lead to avoidance of compliance with the act.
Ms. Adam: I would go even further. It is the responsibility of Public Works, according to government policy, to assess the impact of such a decision on the Official Languages policy. The Commissioner of Official Languages makes sure that rights are not undermined and that changes do not reverse progress. Following problems that we have encountered during parliamentary changes, a policy to this effect was adopted, affecting government actions and federal institutions going through this type of change. I urge you to ask the Department of Public Works to produce an impact report, as a preventive measure.
Senator Comeau: The chair could write to the Minister of Public Works and ask him to send us a copy of the impact report.
Senator Harb: Your mandate includes auditing, promotion and education. Ideally we would be satisfied if 100 per cent of all Canadians spoke English and French. Where are we in terms of reaching this ideal objective? For example, what is happening to French in English speaking provinces outside of Quebec? In Quebec, English, is the second official language, where we are at?
Ms. Adam: Let me begin by answering your question about the state of individual bilingualism in Canada. This is something that is not covered by the act. It would come under the promotion of French and English. It is up to the provinces to promote bilingualism in Canada through their education policies. Over the past 30 or 35 years, the federal government has contributed large sums of money to the provinces to encourage Canadians, young Canadians, to learn their second official language. How far have we come in 35 years? That will be the subject of our review this year.
According to Statistics Canada, one out of every four Canadian youth between the ages of 12 and 18 considers himself to be bilingual. The problem with that type of data is that we cannot really determine the level of bilingualism. Is it functional bilingualism? We know this segment of our population is becoming more bilingual than were previous generations. The country-wide bilingualism level remains at 17 or 18 per cent. There have been spectacular changes in Quebec. Young Quebec anglophones are about 93 per cent bilingual. That is incredible. That has been accomplished in less than a decade. Among the anglophone population in that province, 67 per cent are bilingual. Quebec's young anglophones are more bilingual than the young francophones in that province. Of course, there is more bilingualism. In Canada, bilingualism is higher in Quebec, in New Brunswick and in Ontario than in the Maritimes, and the further west you travel, the less present bilingualism appears to be.
Senator Harb: There has been a lot of talk about the Auditor General and about the values related to investing. Does your mandate require you to draw comparisons with other jurisdictions such as, for example, Belgium, Switzerland and other countries that share the same concerns?
Bilingualism is a controversial issue in Canada. Whether it be in Quebec or in the other provinces, money is being spent but the results are disappointing. Is it because we are not giving it enough time? Is it because the government has not done enough to inform the population about the benefits of having a completely bilingual country? Have you looked at what is done in other jurisdictions? If possible, could you provide us with a copy?
Ms. Adam: The commission has not undertaken a comparative study, nor has, to my knowledge, the Department of Canadian Heritage, which would be the department most likely responsible for making comparisons with other countries. We should speak in terms of challenges rather than of problems specific to Canada. If you look at countries that have more than one official language, since education is not a federal jurisdiction, you can make a population more bilingual if the teaching of the second language was made compulsory in all of the schools throughout the country. But there are a number of provinces where second-language teaching is optional. It is left up to the school board and, ultimately, to the parents. I believe this is why it is difficult to implement this vision of our country.
You asked if the federal government could do much more and much better to promote the added value of bilingualism and its importance to the Canadian federation. The answer is yes.
I feel that the federal government could do a lot more to promote this aspect of our country. People say that we make poor use of our language. We have probably all studied algebra or music. Nevertheless, we did not all become musicians or people who spend their time doing trigonometric calculations. Knowing how to speak a language makes us receptive to others, to their culture, and shows us that there is more than one way to see the world.
There has been too much emphasis placed on the instrumental function of bilingualism in Canada, probably because it was felt that this was the way to govern a country that started out with two languages and two cultures. Without this form of governance and this international linguistic arrangement, which is admired throughout the world, this country may not have enjoyed the same degree of peace, security, social stability and economic prosperity.
That is the type of comment that I would love to hear federal institutions, government, Parliament express more openly and more often.
Senator Ringuette: Do you foresee any budget increases in the coming years?
Ms. Adam: No. You do not think I am being greedy enough?
Senator Ringuette: Is there a reason for that?
Ms. Adam: I must tell you that there was an increase in our basic funding in past years, an amount equivalent to about $4 million, which accounts for the re-introduction of auditing by the commission, a greater presence in the regions and the strengthening of our legal capabilities and parliamentary relations.
When I appeared before the Official Languages Committee last year, I was asked if I wanted an increase in the commission's budget.
At the time I thought we should consolidate our activities before spreading ourselves even further. The Official Languages Committee had asked us to promote French and English. This request involved a promotion and education campaign.
Of course, if we were to undertake such an initiative, we would need more money. I have not acted on that request yet because we must concentrate on consolidating the commission's new directions. But we would not rule out the possibility of broadening our activities, if necessary, at some future time.
Senator Ringuette: In your annual report, you say that 10 federal institutions were responsible for more than half of the formal complaints. Did these complaints come from the public or from staff?
Ms. Adam: They come mostly from the public and I would say that 80 per cent of the complaints involve services to the public.
Senator Ringuette: And of course, francophones are the most poorly served by these institutions?
Ms. Adam: Yes, almost 80 per cent of the complaints come from francophones.
Senator Ringuette: Among the complaints received over the past decade, are there fewer complaints from francophone Canadians or has the situation with respect to active offer remained about the same?
Ms. Adam: Let us deal with services in general. The active offer is the responsibility that an institution has to welcome the client and inform him that he can be served in either one of the two official languages.
For at least a decade now, we have seen stagnation in services. If we take the average in Canada, the service in unavailable about 20 per cent of the time. Despite any recommendations that might be made, it seems to have flattened out.
As to the active offer, it sits at about 35 per cent country-wide. In Canada, you will be greeted in both official languages once out of every three times.
Senator Ringuette: We must not forget that it will take the average francophone quite a lot of time and frustration before he decides to file a complaint. I am speaking from my own experience, when no active offer is made and when you really need the information, you end up asking for it in English.
It is obviously very frustrating and I think you have to go through that more than once before deciding to complain, because of the time that it takes. I would nevertheless encourage you to continue, but I do not think we have made much headway when it comes to the active offer requirement.
Ms. Adam: The level of use of the active offer varies from one region to the next. The active offer can drop below 30 per cent. It can even be as low as 10 per cent in some regions. As to services, in some cases you may only be served in your language 50 per cent of the time in an office that is designated for that purpose.
I feel that the government should re-think how it delivers its services in some parts of the country. It seems to be that if the levelling off has lasted 10 years now, then it might be a good idea to try something different if we want to increase the average. The single-window approach will probably have to be implemented in regions where the minority is much smaller.
In Manitoba, for example, the province is interested in developing service centres in both official languages where the language of work is French, in conjunction with the federal, municipal and private sectors. The anglophones working there will have an opportunity to maintain their second language and the francophones will not be assimilated. Citizens will be served in both official languages in those centres. The federal government should begin to take a serious look at this type of model.
Senator Ferretti Barth: It is easy for me to speak French in Quebec and to continue to understand English. I speak English quite well but I am embarrassed to do so because people hear me and say: “What kind of English is she speaking?”
I come from Switzerland, where they speak Italian, French, English and Romansh. The government treats these four languages with the greatest respect. You can take the train in Lugano, and travel to a French canton, where officials will ask for your documents in Italian, French, German and Romansh. All of these languages are respected in Switzerland.
Personally, I admire what you do. I love the French language because it is so close to my maternal language. I promote the French language in Quebec for elderly people who come from other cultural communities.
What do you do when you receive a complaint? When someone files a complaint, how do you deal with that person?
Ms. Adam: There are various means to file a complaint: in writing, by telephone and via the Internet. There are investigators in my office who gather information about the incident, that is, they determine if it took place in a passport office or a VIA Rail station or on an Air Canada flight; all of the institutions that we cover.
We must investigate and determine if the institution meets the requirements. There are offices throughout the country that are not designated to provide bilingual services. We must see whether or not this was a place that was supposed to provide service in both official languages before deciding if the complaint is justified.
Then we report to the institution and to the complainant. We tell them whether or not the complaint is justified and we make recommendations to the institution, in the case where there was grounds for a complaint.
Senator Ferretti Barth: That sounds like a lengthy process.
Ms. Adam: It varies depending on the nature of the complaint.
Senator Ferretti Barth: There are people who file complaints and who need answers to advance their rights. Could I suggest, Ms. Adam, that you try to tighten up the procedure when the opportunity next arises?
Ms. Adam: I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the complaint procedure and the obligations that we have under our act, as they relate to the procedures that are incumbent upon the commission in conducting an investigation.
I agree that some complaints are straightforward. For example, if the signage was supposed to be in both official languages and if that is not the case, then it should not take a year to settle the matter. We now have a streamlined process for that type of complaint. Our objective is to settle those within 30 days.
Some complaints are more complex, however, for example, those involving the designation of bilingual positions, or those requiring us to determine if an institution has acted in accordance with part VII of our act or of some other act.
Since legal actions against the government are allowed under the Official Languages Act, it is important that the commission follow a well-documented procedure.
There have been occasions in the past, during court cases, when some judges have come down hard on us because our files were not properly documented or because our procedures did not stand up to legal scrutiny.
We have a rigid investigation process. Whenever possible, we try to respect our act and make every attempt to avoid discouraging the public.
Complainants are not discouraged so much by the length of the process but by the fact that the institution does not necessarily follow through in any permanent fashion. Things are corrected once the complaint has been heard, but often it does not last. That is the problem, actually, namely to ensure that the institution will continue to comply.
[English]
Senator Murray: I saw in the media recently a report of testimony by our friend Jim Mitchell at a parliamentary committee or somewhere, and I only go by press reports here, but he was pointing at the failure of the “bilingual vision.” This morning we have had interventions at the table expressing, I am sure, quite valid frustrations and problems. Senator Comeau and I are both members of the Official Languages Committee and we have a chance to dialogue with you on a more frequent basis. However, I cannot resist the opportunity to say, as I have said before, that I think bilingualism has been a terrific success story in this country. Anyone who thinks otherwise is too young to have remembered a time when the entire federal apparatus was wall-to-wall English, almost without exception, or is too young to remember a time when francophone kids were studying almost exclusively with English textbooks, even in so- called French schools and so forth.
I do not know whether you were at the committee the night we had George Arès, who is the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. This was my first encounter with him in about 16 or 17 years, and I asked him to comment on the situation in Western Canada. He gave a report that was very encouraging. He would not pretend, and we would not for a moment, that there is not a lot of work to be done. He talked particularly of the change in attitude of the governments in Western Canada and of the improvements in facilities, services and so on in those provinces. One of the things he said that I found quite interesting and encouraging is that in the governments of some of the provinces in Western Canada are to be found now people in fairly senior positions in the bureaucracy who are graduates of immersion lo these many years before. He said their attitude is quite different — more positive, more open and more understanding — of what needed to be done.
Anyone who thinks that it has been easy to make the progress that has been made, even with the aid of a pretty good framework of legislation and very hard-working commissioners of official languages over the years, has no understanding of what an enormous job it has been to turn a machine like the federal government around. We have buried Louis Robichaud recently, and that province is an entirely different place from what it was, largely because of the language policies and the new language laws he brought in there.
I do not want to discourage people from bringing forward complaints and pointing, quite properly, to improvements that need to be made and injustices that may have taken place. It is important that that be done, but we do not want to go from that into discouragement, and from there into a sense of futility that nothing can be done. An enormous amount has been done, and a lot of credit to be given not only to the government of the day way back there. It is not such a long time ago. Certainly not as senators measure time it is not; thirty-odd years, 36, 37 years, the government of day. I do not exclude the opposition leaders who supported the initiative at political cost and the public service who had to take this on and turn it around, sometimes under great pressures and with great difficulty.
Thus endeth my speech.
Senator Comeau and I get a chance to talk to Ms. Adam about the substance of these matters at the Official Languages committee. We are concerned about finance here. Why did you spend $1 million between April and September of last year on outsourcing? How much of your annual budget goes to outside contracts, and why do you need to do this? Is that because the Treasury Board regulations are too tight? Is it more effective to do this than to have your studies done in house? What are you using these people for? We have just had some testimony from the Chief Elections Officer about his having to convert a lot of term employees to permanent employees. That is the not same thing, is it? What are you using these people for?
Ms. Adam: People or outsourcing?
Senator Murray: Outsourcing.
Ms. Adam: Yes, maybe I will have Ms. Guertin answer that.
Ms. Louise Guertin, Director General, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: We are a small organization if you compare it to big departments. I once worked at Human Resources Development Canada and I am now in an organization of 162 full-time employees, FTEs. A lot of contracts in my branch in particular go for expertise such as information technology and information management. In technology we have seven staff in total. You cannot think that you will have all the expertise at hand. This is a way for us to be more efficient. In a small organization as well, if you look at the type of contracts we have, it could be that for a period of time we have to produce something very rapidly. We might hire a consultant with the right type of expertise, to write a speech, or things like that. Is this enough?
Ms. Adam: With respect to...
The Chairman: $1 million worth of speeches?
Ms. Guertin: No, no. I can say that for IT, for example, we have contracts of, going from memory, $65,000 to review part of an application. For information management, we have contracts of that kind.
Ms. Adam: I will cover the research part. We do a lot of studies and publish them. For example, recently we did one on the English-speaking community in Quebec. Usually, we do not have, necessarily, in-house expertise. Often it is good to go to the researchers themselves, the people that know about the community or this aspect of the question. We will have researchers —
Senator Murray: Is this like a public opinion poll?
Ms. Adam: Not a public opinion. This research is on demographics of the English-speaking community, and covers different aspects. We also did one recently on language of work that was outsourced and is continuing. This is partly a survey of our employees. We did one in the Capital region. Now we are doing Quebec as well as the Crown corporations. This type of work, which is a one-time type of event, we usually outsource.
There are a number of issues. We also may hire legal advisers for specific court interventions.
Senator Murray: I was going to ask about that. I was looking at the act again and at the authority that is given to you, “A” to go to court on behalf of a complainant if that complainant goes to the Federal Court, or to intervene “in any adjudicative proceedings relating to the status or use of English or French.” How much use are you making of that authority? How litigious are you?
Ms. Adam: We are pretty active.
Senator Cools: Wherever there is money you can expect activity.
Ms. Adam: Senator, I am not a lawyer.
Senator Cools: I am talking about lawyers who do it. It is a licence to print money.
Ms. Adam: They are expensive, these people.
Senator Cools: They are expensive because you are willing to pay. If you paid less it would be different.
Senator Day: I am an engineer.
The Chairman: Before we all indicate what our professions are, we are over our time for this committee and Senator Murray is finishing his question.
Senator Murray: I have asked my last question.
The Chairman: Senator Cools has one short question.
Senator Cools: Could you share some of your findings on the English community in Quebec? If there is a community that feels Godforsaken and abandoned by its government, it certainly is that community. I am very aware of the good work that the commission does, but I really fear for the future of the English community in Montreal.
I have three little questions. First, since you raised the question of English in Montreal, what is being done in the instance of Black Canadians? Black people are notoriously unilingual.
The Chairman: Haitians?
Senator Cools: I am talking about West Indians; most Black people in Canada are unilingual. I am told it is hard to move ahead in the public service because of their unilingualism. There are a few people here but by and large coming from the English speaking Caribbean, they are at a handicap. In other parts of Canada, it is true, perhaps that Haitians have an advantage, but I am talking about a problem that afflicts large numbers. Do you have anything on that?
Then quickly, in respect of the senior civil servants, do you have any numbers on how many of those are francophone and unilingual, or anglophone and unilingual. I am interested because the willingness to learn language early is something to be encouraged. I think to promote more study, especially at the child or school level, one should really have a clearer picture of what is happening. If you could hit those three items with lightning speed.
Ms. Adam: How many minutes do I have?
The Chairman: Two minutes.
Senator Day: Perhaps you could give something to us in writing on that.
Ms. Adam: I did not mention that it was English in Montreal. It was English-speaking communities in the Province of Quebec, because the English-speaking community, we should say English-speaking communities in Quebec —
Senator Cools: Of course.
Ms. Adam: The reality in Montreal is quite different than other places in the province. In that study, I will not go into detail because we do not have time — if you have not received a copy I will gladly send you a copy — what we are seeing is a community that is extremely changing, that is very bilingual, more and more, and very diverse. The people in that community that speak a language other than French or English, tend to sustain their language, which is a bit different than other places in Canada. This is another avenue we could explore.
Yes, there are specific challenges and I will not go on this issue further, but I will just say that next week I am attending a meeting on research organized by the Université du Québec à Montréal, UQAM, on the English-speaking community. The researchers in the university and elsewhere are coming together to see how they can best document the reality and provide information for policy development, et cetera. That is a good thrust that is coming out of this.
With respect to the visible minorities in the public service, this is an issue that is being addressed right now by the central agencies; looking at myths as well as what is the reality out there. I know there are studies looking at the bilingual visible minorities in Canada. There are some, but where are they?
Also, how can we better support this group, if they are not bilingual? If we want to reach a target in our public servants, how can we best support that group in terms of learning the second official language? That is being addressed I believe by the central agencies. We are also concerned that if there is any belief that the official language is a deterrent for them to access the public service, certainly that is an area of concern.
Senator Cools: I have a suspicion that we will discover that it is a deterrent to many. I do not know how to address such a problem, but it is definitely commanding attention.
Ms. Adam: The only way can you find a solution to a phenomenon is to document it. What are the variables behind it? What is the problem, and not go on hearsay and on anecdotal evidence which is often the case unfortunately, in the public service.
Senator Cools: One reason there have been so many drastic changes to the English communities of Quebec is, to be frank, mass migration. I am one of those Quebecers who left because there was no future at all for me, as you would know. Years ago, places like Quebec City used to have thriving English communities. They are no more.
Senator Murray: They have been assimilated.
Senator Cools: No, they have not been assimilated. I would be interested to find out just how many English Canadians moved out of Quebec post-1970 because of their inability to get ahead. I could name you six dozen people across the country that I know personally who left, and no one will talk about it.
Ms. Adam: It is partly in our study.
The Chairman: Madam Commissioner that will be a good subject for the next time you come here. Thank you very much for appearing before us today.
Ms. Adam: Thank you for inviting us.
The committee adjourned.