Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, June 19, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met today at 5:05 p.m. to study and to report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. My name is Maria Chaput, and I am the chair of this committee. I am from Manitoba.
Today, we will be hearing from witnesses, but before handing them the floor, I would like to introduce members of this committee.
To my left are Senator Andrée Champagne from Grandville and Senator Fernand Robichaud, from New Brunswick. To my right, are Senator Madeleine Plamondon, Senator Claudette Tardif from Alberta, and Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool from New Brunswick.
Today, we are continuing our study on the application of the Official Languages Act. We will begin by hearing from representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA. We will then hear from the president of the Treasury Board Secretariat and senior officials.
As you know, the FCFA is the national and international representative organization of official language minority communities in Canada. It ensures the political representation, as well as the promotion and support of development of these communities, in collaboration with its members and partners. We asked the FCFA to provide this committee with its comments on the recent strengthening of the Official Languages Act following the adoption of Bill S-3, last fall.
With us today are the vice president of the FCFA, Ms Lise Routhier-Boudreau, as well as Ms. Diane Côté, Director of Community and Government Relations. Ladies, you have the floor. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation followed by rounds of questions.
Lise Routhier-Boudreau, Vice-President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Thank you, Madam Chairman. First and foremost, allow me to thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. The topic you were studying today, namely the specifics of the recent strengthening of the Official Languages Act, is of the utmost importance for francophone and Acadian communities.
The FCFA believes that it is essential for francophone and Acadian communities to be proactive as regards the issues stemming from the implementation of the new Part VII. Therefore, at our recent annual general assembly held over the weekend, we seized the opportunity to begin reflecting on this issue with the help of our guest panellists, Ms. Dyane Adam and Mr. Michel Doucet and our members and guests.
Let us begin with the wording of the new Part VII, that deals with the federal government's commitment to enhance the vitality of anglophone and francophone communities in Canada. In fact, Part VII stipulates the following:
Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of this commitment.
Therefore, it is clear that if Heritage Canada is to keep its role as coordinator, then all federal institutions are responsible for enhancing the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities, supporting their development, and promoting the recognition and the use of the French language in Canadian society.
That is the basic principle. Now, in concrete terms, what are the communities' expectations? By and large, they can be summarized in three points: first, community consultations, and the development of new relations based on collaboration and partnership; second, the obligation of federal institutions to take positive measures; and last, the recognition of the equal status of French and English and the active promotion of Canada's linguistic duality.
Let us begin by talking about communities' consultations. To our mind, this is the basic and initial step that applies particularly to institutions whose mandates do not or barely affect communities' development. As for institutions whose mandates bear a more direct impact on communities' development, we must go much further than consultation. I will come back to this point later on.
It remains, nonetheless, that we expect each and every federal institution to comply with certain parameters when undertaking consultations. In fact, when we talk about this issue with our government partners, a certain unease always surfaces when talking about what it truly means to "consult communities."
To our mind, consultation is built on the development of a seamless dialogue and a trustful relationship between federal institutions and representative community organizations. This continued cooperation allows for better understanding of the greater role an institution plays within a community. It also establishes a basis for communication and constructive dialogue and a better understanding of common issues.
Certain core benchmarks are essential for consultations. First, a federal institution undertaking consultations must clearly identify goals, expected results, as well as provide the community with details of the steps to be taken. It must also provide the community with necessary resources, in terms of information and research. Last, and very important, federal institutions must set out a reasonable timeline so that communities have enough time to become familiar with the documents and work together.
However, consultation is never as important as what is done with the information gathered. Communities must understand the outcome of their involvement, and know how they influenced or enlightened the decisions made during consultation. Where relevant, it is also essential that communities understand why their recommendations or comments were disregarded, and what alternative measures will be taken by the federal institution.
Above all else, the new Part VII allows us to go much further. It must allow communities to develop cooperative relationships in partnership with federal institutions, particularly those whose mandates bear a direct impact on communities' development. Part VII must also incite federal institutions to work together with communities and facilitate their involvement in developing public policy that has an impact on their development. In fact, during our general assembly this past weekend, the Commissioner of Official Languages encouraged us to settle for nothing less than involvement at all levels.
Over the last few years, shared governance mechanisms have emerged in certain sectors, specific examples are the advisory committee for Health Canada, as well as the steering committee at Citizenship and Immigration Canada for official language communities living in a minority setting. This shared governance structure allows for increased involvement of communities in developing policies. This is how we can go beyond consultation according to needs.
The implementation of the new Part VII should strengthen shared governance mechanisms already in place, as well as create new ones with other federal institutions.
Second, when we talk about the federal institutions' obligation to act, we believe that all new policies and all new programs should be examined in terms of support to community development and promotion of linguistic duality. Our expectation is that all policies and government programs will gradually be reviewed and made consistent with the obligations set out in the new Part VII.
In fact, it is within this framework that it becomes imperative to act and realize the great potential for creativity and innovation. For example, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs could theoretically work together with the Consortium national de formation en santé and the société Santé en français in exchange programs that allow for healthcare professionals to share their expertise. That could lead to possible spinoffs such as better healthcare services for both soldiers and veterans, as well as for francophone and Acadian communities.
Last, we place a lot of emphasis on the federal institutions' obligation to promote the recognition and use of the French and English languages in Canadian society. Consequently, federal institutions themselves must recognize the equal status of both languages across the country. That means that federal institutions, for instance, should adopt policies that reflect and value both official languages, regardless of the majority living in a certain area. We believe that it is also important that these institutions make sure that discussions with the provinces and territories include support and encouragement mechanisms that would oblige provincial and territorial governments to recognize official language minority groups and promote linguistic duality.
To sum up, for francophone and Acadian communities, Bill S-3 means that the government has the obligation to once again assume leadership in supporting the development of official language minorities and in the promotion of the use of French and English throughout Canada. As the Commissioner of Official Languages said so eloquently during the FCFA general assembly held this weekend, over the next five years, federal institutions must develop a sort of "Part VII" reflex when including positive measures in their policies and programs.
The government's commitment to linguistic duality is one of this country's fundamental values, and is tantamount to a commitment to Canada's future.
I would also point out that the FCFA is currently very concerned over the fact that no one has yet been appointed to succeed Ms. Adam, who, as you know, will step down from her duties in July. It is possible that, in a few months, we will find ourselves in an unprecedented situation: a commissioner's office with no commissioner.
I need not tell you how significant a problem this would be. The current commissioner has opened many doors and accomplished considerable work on issues that will determine the future of official languages in Canada, and the FCFA is particularly concerned over work continuity. As the adoption of Bill S-3 cause upon the government to renew its leadership in promoting linguistic duality, we need a strong, committed commissioner who will work with both federal institutions and communities.
The person who will succeed Ms. Adam must be perfectly well-versed on issues when a new parliamentary session begins in the fall. At a time when the new Part VII suggests significant changes to the official languages system in Canada, we cannot allow for the Office of the Commissioner on Official Languages to be destabilized or weakened. We will now take your questions.
Senator Plamondon: The Official Languages Act gives you rights. Based on those rights, you have expectations. If your expectations are not met, it is because there has been a breach of the law. Normally, when there's a breach of the law, there are lawsuits, and penalties. What do you intend to do to make sure that the Act is complied with?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: It is obvious that we always have access to recourse.
Senator Plamondon: Like what?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Legal recourse, at all levels. At the same time, we hope to not have to go before the Supreme Court of Canada. It would be desirable to find a way to collaborate and establish trustful relationships with our partners, without having to risk our gains and accomplishments to go before the courts. We hope that, with Part VII, we will, above all, find a way to establish trustful relationships, since this has now become an obligation that is clearly defined.
Senator Plamondon: My sub-question relates specifically to that. If you have been consulted for a long time, there are mechanisms, and you are always forced to take recourse, is it not time to take a more radical action?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Given the adoption of Bill S-3, it is obvious that that remains a possibility, but once again, it is an avenue we will take only when necessary. I believe that there is now an unprecedented opening. All courts and tribunals have been sensitized significantly. We dare hope that we can work to make things go forward. Perhaps Diane would like to say something on that subject.
Diane Côté, Director, Community and Government Relations, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: I believe that the new Official Languages Act, the new Part VII, changes the landscape significantly.
At the outset, yes, we do have the possibility of legal recourse, which was not the case before the new Part was added to the act. However, at the same time, we, as well as the federal institutions, truly have the opportunity to work closer together, and enter into a true dialogue. Before, federal institutions always made the argument that they were not bound to act, that it was a political wish rather than an obligation. Now, federal institutions must act. What we want is to open the dialogue so that there can be action.
Senator Losier-Cool: Welcome to you both, it is always a pleasure to see you again.
For now, my question is not on Bill S-3. In order to help us prepare our reports, I would like to hear a few statistics about the FCFA; in other words, who do you represent? I know that you represent associations; but at any point, has there ever been any overlap between the FCFA and other associations, at the provincial level? I am referring to the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique and others. Can you provide us some information on the FCFA?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: The FCFA brings together representative organizations from different provinces and territories, as well as a good number of national organizations that operate at the national level.
Our mandate is to work with different organizations, to establish measures that promote the development and enhance the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities in Canada.
At our annual assembly, we initiated a reflection process and identified ways to tighten our governance mechanisms.
We are interested in facilitating consultation between those who are concerned with francophonie issues and are interested in making progress.
Yes, there are currently organizations that overlap others — you are probably thinking about the situation in New Brunswick — where we are working simultaneously on the same issues. We make sure to establish regular consultations with all francophones stakeholders. In fact, in June, we are organizing a summit of the francophone and Acadian communities to call upon all key players in the francophone communities.
Senator Losier-Cool: Does the FCFA bring the associations together?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Yes.
Senator Losier-Cool: If I become a member of a provincial association, such as the FANE or the SANB, do I automatically become affiliated with the FCFA?
Is there any overlap with the Société nationale acadienne, the SNA, which is not a member of the FCFA?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: My institutional memory is such that I do not recall the history of the SNA. Diane would be in a better position to answer your question.
Senator Losier-Cool: They will be celebrating their 125th anniversary this year.
Ms. Côté: The SNA has always been interested in Acadian cultural issues, in addition to the international promotion of the Acadian community. In past years, the SNA and FCFA have worked according to a memorandum of understating on the issue of the international promotion of communities. Representatives from the Atlantic and Acadian regions are also members of the SNA, as well as of the FCFA.
Our mandate is to defend the rights and interests of francophones throughout the country by way of representation to the federal government and community promotion to all Canadian citizens.
However, the SNA's mandate is very much based in Acadia. There isn't any real cross-over.
Senator Losier-Cool: Are Acadians' political demands to governments made through the SNA or the FCFA?
Ms. Côté: For Acadians in the provinces, the FCFA is always the representative organization that makes representations to the provincial government. We provide support, but we do not make representations the province. We make our demands to the federal government.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for your excellent presentation. I am interested in Part V of the Official Languages Act, and more specifically, the impact of moving national headquarters from a bilingual region to a unilingual region, such as with last year's move of the Canadian Tourism Commission from Ottawa to Vancouver.
What is the impact on communities when these relocations are made? Are you satisfied with the effects such moves have had on your communities? Are you consulted when these moves are decided?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: We are never, or rarely consulted. That is of great importance to us because the impact of these moves on communities is quite significant.
Perhaps I can cite the example of the Mayor's Forum. That brings us back to the importance of consultation, as I explained in my presentation. At first glance, one assumes that there will be no impact on the francophone community. But if we took the time to consult, research, investigate and analyze the impact, we could avoid decisions that have unfortunate effects on the community. Indeed, a relocation such as that one can have an impact on workers, the economy, and the entire community.
In the presentation, we said that we have to go beyond consultation. Communities must be called upon to share their concerns when government decides to implement policies and directions.
Senator Tardif: In those cases, do you see a link between Parts IV, V and VII of the act?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Yes, there is a link.
Ms. Côté: In a decision to move a federal institution from Ottawa to an officially unilingual region, it is extremely important to underscore the fact that applying obligations would be extremely difficult, even under Part IV.
Everything starts with the personnel, the people who work at the agency, who are responsible for the services offered to the public across the country. It still remains the national headquarters. Under Part VII, greater awareness must be achieved.
Senator Tardif: Do you believe that the government should develop regulations on the language of work, because currently, there is only a temporary order.
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: It would be important to develop parameters according to the situation. Can regulations unilaterally deal with all problems, in all situations? I do not believe that there is a solution for all of the potential situations. We have to proceed case-by-case. However, one must be proactive in undertaking relevant consultations, and they are all the more effective when done prior to making these types of decisions.
Ms. Côté: The commissioner, this past year, recommended reviewing the entire linguistic system. She recommended making active changes, and rather than looking at Part IV, Part V, Part VI or Part VII one after the other, we should look at all of the goals of the Official Language Act. Therefore, when we talk about regulations, we should apply the same vision. For a long time, regulations under Part IV simply do not apply to today's reality in 2006 and the future. It is already important to review the regulations under Part IV. It would also be important to look at the Official Languages Act in its entirety.
Senator Champagne: Firstly, I wish to give you one reassurance with respect to the Official Languages Commissioner. It is not that I have divine powers, but I am certain that an appointment will be made at the appropriate moment. Ms. Adam is still serving until the end of July. It is possible that the person to be appointed is already aware of issues and is working behind the scenes. I am not at all panicked by the fact that Ms. Adam is being left to finish her mandate with complete peace of mind.
Perhaps it is the Quebecer in me who is wondering what the FCFA is doing as regards immigration. In Quebec, when immigrants arrive, they are automatically integrated into the francophone culture. Children are obliged to go to French school. In the case of francophones outside Quebec and for Acadians, I know that you have worked with immigrants, and I would like to hear about that.
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Since I only came to this FCFA not too long ago, and that so much work had already been done, I will let Ms. Côté talk to you about what we have done on the immigration issue to date.
Ms. Côté: In 2002, we struck a steering committee on citizenship, immigration and francophone communities living in a minority setting. The committee first developed a strategic framework to promote francophone immigration in communities outside of Quebec. We are getting ready to table a strategic plan which should have been tabled this past spring, but was postponed because of the change in government.
There was a statement of priorities, which included promoting francophone communities abroad, giving communities the tools they need to welcome and integrate immigrants within communities, as well as create a network of different communities working on the immigration file. It is an issue that is highly complex and which involves several departments and federal institutions. Currently, the steering committee, several departments and agencies, as well as provincial governments have federal-provincial agreements on immigration.
Now, what does that translate into in the communities? Obviously, the issue is still new. In Ontario, for example, there are communities which have welcomed francophone immigrants for the last 15 years, particularly in Toronto and Ottawa, whereas in other places like Alberta, particularly in Edmonton and Calgary, the francophone immigrant population has only recently begun to grow considerably. There has also been francophone immigration to Vancouver.
We would like to see francophones welcome and integration centres that would allow our people to direct newcomers to the right places to receive community services. Obviously, the immigrants we are talking about and to whom we are promoting services, are immigrants from countries of the Francophonie, therefore immigrants who already speak French.
Senator Champagne: Are those people approached once they have settled in Canada? Or can an organization such as yours promote immigration to Canada in francophone countries, and promote immigration to French-speaking Canadian regions outside of Quebec? That would be an interesting idea.
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Absolutely. Last spring, we went on an international tour and when we showed people the high number of francophone communities spread out across the country, people were very surprised. It is not well known. Indeed, we are doing major promotional work on that issue.
You are still dealing with a very important problem which is increasing our organizations' and communities' capacity to welcome immigrants. Unfortunately, we are not able to provide services that people are entitled to. That remains a major challenge.
The Chairman: What is the health of the communities you represent? What state are your members, francophones and Acadians, in? In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: What would help us considerably is research. There are a great number of government initiatives to carry out different types of research, which would allow us to better understand the respective state of all our communities. However, unfortunately, all too often, specific questions that would allow us to gather relevant statistics on francophones are not asked. Research is usually done on and for majority groups.
Oftentimes, we are obliged to draw conclusions, but it is difficult when the research is based on data concerning the majority. If there were specific projects, that would really help us out because then we could take specific steps in targeted areas.
Senator Robichaud: You said during your presentation that, in order for consultations to be significant, institutions must believe that both languages are equal. I believe this too. Could you compliment the institutions that deserve it and also tell us which institutions still have some work to do before they could be complimented?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Without giving you a list of institutions, something that has been identified as a major problem is the entire issue of promoting linguistic duality not only to francophone communities, but to all Canadians. I have been a teacher all my life and, after having worked for 35 years in schools or French-language sections, I can tell you that, it is not really popular for our young people to speak French.
A great deal of work had to be done to get them to feel such pride, because it is not valued and this sentiment can be felt within a vast number of institutions and areas. Promoting linguistic duality is central to the activities we undertake and the government has an important leadership role to play in this regard. All too often, we are limited to serving the francophone population when you are force to do so, but when we deal with communities or forums where the stakeholders are mostly anglophone, linguistic duality is not valued. Doing so would be a first step.
In terms of the institutions, I think that Diane is in a better position to answer your question.
Ms. Côté: It is hard to grade the federal institutions at this stage. However, the example given earlier, and incidentally a complaint was lodged in this case, has to do with the census. Statistics Canada had decided to send out its long questionnaire in both official languages only to regions with more than 5 per cent of francophones.
The census is one of those rare opportunities where the Canadian government makes contact with the entire population, and we found it unacceptable that all Canadians did not receive their census questionnaire in both official languages. Quite simply, it is a matter of the standard use of French and English in society.
Senator Robichaud: You believe that we are not there yet, but will it take time?
Ms. Côté: It comes down to leadership, will and work. I do not think that the answer will come one day and then it will be over. There is always something to work on.
Senator Robichaud: Yes, of course. I come from New Brunswick and I am Acadian; even if this province is the only bilingual province in the country, there is work still to be done. We must constantly be on guard. You talked bout valuing the French language. Unfortunately, I believe that, often, we francophones do not insist enough during our communications with institutions that we be served in our own language. We are very accommodating.
We recently spoke with the commissioner and she said that the lead institutions had a leadership role to play in order to invite people to use their language at work. We have a long way to go in this regard. It is not an easy answer.
We also talked about the relocation of the Canadian Tourism Commission to Vancouver. Have people called you to give you positive or negative feedback about this relocation?
If we consider the relocation of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island — and PEI is not a designated bilingual region — people from that region are telling us that the francophone community on PEI has greatly benefited. Might we see the same thing in Vancouver?
Of course I do not want to offset the rights of people who were at the Commission because very few francophones relocated, but we should try to find a balance between their rights and the rights of people in the community who will experience a renewal of sorts with the relocation of those francophones.
Ms. Côté: In terms of population and economic activity, Vancouver and Charlottetown are two very different cities; and we have not heard anything, one way or another, to date from the community.
Senator Comeau: I find it interesting that Nova Scotia is one of the only provinces that still have not signed the agreement with the Department of Heritage Canada and there seems to be some concerns about the agreement signed by all the other provinces.
Have you had the opportunity to talk about this with the authorities from the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle- Écosse in order to find out whether any progress has been made in regard to this agreement?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Some difficulties do in fact remain, although the talks are continuing. Obviously, there are a number of problems, not only in Nova Scotia, but everywhere, regarding the entire issue of reinforcing community capacities.
In Nova Scotia, at present, these concerns do not seem to be sufficiently focused in order to be able to reach an agreement, but the will is there. Will we soon reach a resolution that will be satisfactory to all parties? We are not yet there.
Senator Comeau: The Federation in Alberta also seems to be having similar problems. Public servants and the community in Alberta do not share the same priorities, particularly with regard to priorities in healthcare in Alberta. Officials have not yet understood the valuable rule that our federations in each of the provinces have to play with regard to the federal government. Are Alberta and Nova Scotia isolated cases or will we see this more and more through Canada?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: There is in fact a serious problem in this regard. We mentioned this in our presentation. It is about the issue of developing a relation of trust with stakeholders representing the government in the various provinces and territories. nfortunately, all too often, we get the feeling that we are consulted at times out of principle, but that ultimately the decisions made do not coincide with the priorities identified.
We are well aware that the priorities of communities cannot always be respected, but it is important to be able to understand why. In the case that was just mentioned in Alberta — I think this is part of the problem — if the priorities of communities cannot be respected, we need to understand why and the communities then need to be told which door to knock on if a particular issue does not come under a particular jurisdiction.
Senator Comeau: Mr. Johnson did not seem to be mincing words when he talked about this. It is a bit of a concern when people, mainly volunteers who were very attached to their community and who know where the needs are, have reached the point where they are prepared to talk to the medias. Particularly since the adoption of Bill S-3 and that the relationships between the federal public service and communities have to be examined.
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: I am confident that Bill S-3 will perhaps give us this opening to start a discussion such as this, which will benefit the work we do in partnership and in cooperation with federal institutions.
Senator Comeau: I want to thank you for appearing before us today. I hope you will excuse me for my brief absence today; rest assured that I will read the minutes of this afternoon's discussions very carefully.
Senator Losier-Cool: Your associations held their annual meeting this weekend. To follow up on the Chair's question, are the association members positive and confident in the future? Have they a succession plan in place? With regard to funding, whenever they meet with us, be it the Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes françaises or others, funding always comes up; it is difficult to function and to promote specifically Bill S-3 and what this will now mean for those communities. How do your members feel about this?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Clearly there is a major problem with regard to funding. Strengthening communities is a priority for the FCFA. This problem will be addressed in a major way in the next few years. Clearly, support of this level is far from being sufficient.
However, the communities are very determined and willing to do the work that needs to be done. It is important for the communities as a whole, for the FCFA, to work together in order to be able to adopt policies, development and strategic plans to maximize our resources and allow us to ensure that our actions and our influence are wide ranging.
This weekend we realized that everyone present wants to work towards this goal. We want to provide results and tangible proof that we are making an important contribution to the development of Canada as francophones. And it is with this goal in mind that we will broach the coming months and years.
Senator Losier-Cool: Thank you, you are facing quite a challenge; a reality and a wonderful challenge.
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Thank you.
Senator Tardif: As an Albertan, I want to thank Senator Comeau for having raised very important questions about the deteriorating relationship between Heritage Canada and Alberta.
I want to come back to the whole issue of the administrative changes that have occurred since January 23. In your opinion, what has been the impact of transferring responsibilities for official languages from the Privy Council to Heritage Canada, and what effect does this have on your organization?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: I must admit that we have some concerns in view of this change. We are a bit concerned with the possibility of confusion between the files under one or the other. The fact that there are now different stakeholders means changes in how we do things too. It will take some getting used to.
We were somewhat surprised by this too because, with regard to the Privy Council, we saw it as an effective way to deal with the various bodies. We continue to operate in the same way and we remain hopeful that it will be very effective, obviously, but at the moment, we still have to learn how things work now.
Senator Plamondon: In one of your last sentences, you said, "I have confidence that, with Bill S-3, perhaps...". When I hear "I have confidence" and then "perhaps" immediately after, I am not filled with confidence! Do you have an action plan?
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: This is in fact a priority file for us in the coming months. Our first step was to consult our organizations in order to ensure that we had a concerted action plan in terms of the steps that need to be taken in this regard.
We also invited Mr. Graham Fraser who told us a bit about his recent work and spoke about the problem, meaning that the communities may have too often worked unnoticed in the past. I can say that our mandate this year was to promote the importance of the work that we do for and with francophones. No doubt you will hear people talking about us and there is no "perhaps" here.
The Chairman: Ladies, thank you very much for your presentation.
Ms. Routhier-Boudreau: Thank you.
(The sitting is suspended.)
(The sitting resumed.)
The Chairman: Let us resume. We will now hear from the Honourable John Baird.
[English]
Welcome, minister, and thank you for being with us today. The Honourable John Baird is President of Treasury Board and is accompanied by officials from the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada and officials from the Canada School of Public Service, Mr. David Waung and Sylvain Dufour.
The Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada, PSMA, is responsible for developing and coordinating policies and regulations for the federal public service that relate to communications with, and services to, the public language of work and the participation of both English- and French-speaking Canadians.
[Translation]
The Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada is responsible for providing general direction to all federal institutions subject to the Official languages Act.
The Canada School of Public Service provides language training to federal public service employees and cooperates with central agencies to examine and develop a modern approach to bilingualism and official language learning. Since 2003, the School is responsible for the activities of three former federal agencies: Training and Development Canada, Language Training Canada and the Canadian Centre for Management Development.
Honourable John Baird, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Honourable senators, I am very pleased to be here today to talk to you about the Treasury Board.
[English]
I wish to thank you for the kind invitation to be with you today at this committee. Many of you will have a number of questions about my responsibilities and issues that are of natural concern to the members of the committee. I will be happy to answer those questions after brief opening remarks. I will try to be brief so there will be opportunities for dialogue and questions.
When the Prime Minister asked me to be President of the Treasury Board, I faced the daunting task of delivering one of the key priorities of the government's new agenda. Our first task was to table the proposed federal accountability act. The act is moving along nicely in the House and, hopefully, will soon be referred to the Senate for your consideration. Passage of the proposed legislation will go a long way towards restoring Canadians' faith in government. It will allow Canadians to see their parliamentarians truly work together to restore their trust in the institutions of their government and in the political process. It will restore a strong culture of public service values and ethics — what I have been calling a "culture of accountability."
I am aware, however, that, while these priorities are of importance, there are other responsibilities that will require my attention as President of the Treasury Board.
[Translation]
As the President of the Treasury Board, I have important responsibilities regarding official languages relating to the federal workforce — that is making sure that Canadians can be served in the language of their choice as specified in the Act and Regulations, making sure that federal institutions reflect Canada's linguistic duality and promoting equity in the workplace so that both French and English-speaking Canadians enjoy equal opportunities for advancement and, where applicable, can work in the language of their choice.
Let me reaffirm the statements made over the past weeks by my Cabinet colleagues, namely that the government I represent is committed to enhancing the vitality of official languages within the public service and in promoting linguistic duality.
[English]
As the committee is aware, there are a number of other partners who work together across the area of public administration in the area of official languages to administer the Official Languages Act. I brought along copies of a chart that describes the key roles of the players.
My portfolio includes the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency, and the Canada School of Public Service. These institutions play a significant role in promoting a public service that leads by example. The agency supports Treasury Board Secretariat in its role regarding policies, directives and regulations related to official languages. It monitors activities in some 200 federal institutions that are subject to the act, in accordance with Part VIII of the Official Languages Act.
The school is responsible for the development of innovative learning products and the provision of quality language training services for federal employees. While I must acknowledge that I am still learning many things about the official languages responsibilities of each of these institutions, I certainly have not been idle.
This spring, I had the opportunity to meet with the Commissioner of Official Languages on two occasions. We touched on the delivery of bilingual services and how that delivery might be improved. We discussed the action plan for official languages and how the federal government is currently supporting the development of our minority language communities. I told the commissioner that we would carefully study suggestions and recommendations that she made two weeks ago in her most recent annual report.
[Translation]
This morning, I submitted to Parliament the seventeenth Annual Report on Official Languages of the President of the Treasury Board, covering the 2004-2005 period. This document provides a good overview of the delivery of Official Languages Programs in institutions subject to the Act.
[English]
While we may not be where we should be and would like to be with respect to our objectives on official languages, the report shows that we have made tremendous strides to make official languages an accepted reality within the federal public service. For example, when compared with the situation back in 1978, most employees meet the language requirements of their position when they are appointed — that is, 88.5 per cent in 2004-05, compared with just 69.7 per cent in 1978. Supervisors in bilingual positions have higher proficiency in their second official languages. Approximately 52 per cent have their C level, or highest level in 2004-05, compared with 12 per cent back in 1978. If we look at all bilingual positions having a supervisory role, 85 per cent meet the requirements of their positions, while in 1978 only 64 per cent met the requirements. The capacity is clearing growing and improving.
This does not mean that all our objectives are met, and the report outlines some challenges that persist. There is still much to be done to ensure that the values of the Official Languages Act and related programs are realized.
The report also outlines a number of ongoing departmental initiatives that may be of particular interest to members of the committee. One example comes from Nova Scotia; the Canada Revenue Agency works with the Universite Sainte-Anne and the College de l'Acadie to develop learning approaches using video conferencing so that public servants can maintain or develop their language skills. You can see an example on page 22 in the English version of the report.
[Translation]
We have stepped up our monitoring of the linguistic performance of federal institutions. To do so, we have implemented a new accountability model. This is in addition to a number of regular audits that focus on previously identified areas for improvement.
[English]
There are many other interesting initiatives listed in the report that I would invite you to consult.
I have spent some time learning more about public servants and the investments we make to develop their official language skills through the Canada School of Public Service. The government is committed to a culture of bilingualism within the public service. Public servants will have greater access to training through eight private sector suppliers in the National Capital Region and 10 agreements with colleges and universities located across the country. Over the course of the next few months, I plan to reflect more on this file and I am interested in your thoughts on the challenges and issues before us. Your input will help us to advance this file.
As President of the Treasury Board, I am happy to promote a strong public service culture that respects its essential values. I believe that Canada's strength is based on its commitment to promote equal opportunities for all Canadians on the values of fairness, respect and inclusion. The official languages program is built on these values and the public service has the responsibility to be exemplary in this regard. I look forward to your questions and obtaining your advice, counsel and guidance on how to best proceed in these important areas.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Minister, for your presentation. I am interested in the issue regarding Part V of the act, meaning the part related to employees' language of work and also the effects of relocating a head office from a bilingual region to a unilingual region, and in particular, relocating the Canadian Tourism Commission.
When your colleague, the Minister of Justice, appeared, we asked him if he was considering the possibility of updating the regulations and, more particularly, if it would not be better to adopt regulations for Part V of the act, rather than an intervention on a case-by-case or ad hoc basis, as is presently the case for the Canadian Tourism Commission. The Minister said and I quote:
The language of work of employees falls under the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board Secretariat. The President carries out his responsibilities with the help of the Human Resources Management Agency of the Public Service Commission of Canada.
He suggested that we ask you the question? Have you considered the possibility of drafting regulations on the language of work?
Mr. Baird: I want to make a few comments and ask my colleague, Ms. Boudrias, to provide a more detailed answer. I represent a new government that is only five months old and I have worked very hard in two areas. First, the bill on accountability and, second, the measures in the federal budget. When the current session comes to an end, I would have more time to study the matters to which you are referring. As a former provincial minister, I know that it is always important to look at how the regulations and programs are working and whether any changes are required.
Sometimes, there is a difference between the legislation and what follows. It is important to see whether we are fulfilling all our current obligations, before taking on any more. Of course, the report I tabled in Parliament was with the previous government and there is a very strong support to achieve the objectives of this legislation, particularly within the public service.
Monique Boudrias, Acting President, and Public Service Human Resources Human Resources Management Agency of Canada: At the moment, we believe that the temporary measure we implemented during the relocation of the Canadian Tourism Commission to Vancouver is sufficient. We need to discuss this again with our minister in order to find out whether additional measures need to be taken, and whether the transitional measure is sufficient. To date, an excellent job has been done with regard to the CTC employees and their rights in terms of the language of work have been upheld in the current situation.
As long as no additional measures are added, the temporary measure is sufficient. We could talk more about this if other initiatives are added.
Mr. Baird: It would be a good idea to think about moving government businesses in the National Capital Region. Serious thought must be given before they are moved out the National Capital.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for that comment, because, often, and you said so well, it is better to be proactive and anticipate the consequences before taking action. It would be beneficial to have regulations covering such cases, rather than revisiting the issue and implementing temporary measures each time relocation occurs.
Mr. Baird: It is not a proactive measure. It is part of the decision. Can it work in a region other than Ottawa? This is not something that should be considered after the fact, it has to be part of the decision.
Senator Tardif: Is your government prepared to review the list of bilingual regions?
Mr. Baird: I have not thought about that yet.
Diana Monnet, vice-President, Official Languages, Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada: To date, no, such redefinition has not been considered.
Mr. Baird: In my opinion, there is no difference between our policies and those of the previous government. I have not seen any opinions to the effect that the previous government made a mistake. When I was the minister responsible for francophone affairs, we increased the number of regions. It is important to consider much more than simply the realities facing the people living in a particular region.
Senator Tardif: I think that there have been a number of changes in space and time since this first definition.
Mr. Baird: Many immigrants speak French. I visited a French school in downtown Toronto. Between 30 and 40 different countries were represented. The face of our francophonie is changing dramatically. In my riding in western suburb, when I was first elected to the provincial legislature, there were no French schools, but since my departure, there are now two such schools. Things are starting to change.
Senator Comeau: I want to talk about Part VII — public services and language training. I was pleased to see that your annual report referred to the fact that the Canada Revenue Agency had undertaken a project with University Sainte-Anne and the Collège de l'Acadie to assess the potential for distance learning. The Language Training Centre is developing a training program that will be administered by a public service school rather than schools already in existence. There are a few examples in Alberta and Quebec where language training is already being provided.
Why would the federal government not provide training through these already existing schools, which specialize in this area? Why would public servants not take courses in private schools? In addition to improving their second official language, public servants would also be exposed to the difficulties faced by minority communities and would thereby be more aware of the reality of such communities. They would understand the implications of Bill S-3 to make Canada a country that recognizes and promotes linguistic duality.
Mr. Baird: Awareness training is extremely important for public servants and all Canadians. In Ontario, where I am from, francophones living in the riding of Prescott-Russell live in a majority English-speaking environment. However, one of the priorities of the language training program is to attain excellent knowledge of the other language. This is extremely important. I will take note of your comment.
[English]
David Waung, Vice-President, Registrar, Canada School of Public Service: To add detail to those comments, we are working with the private sector, universities and colleges in the supply of language training. We have 10 memorandums of understanding with universities and colleges across the country, and we are working to increase that number so that the supply of quality language training will be available to meet the public service needs.
Senator Comeau: What I am trying to communicate is that many of these schools are quite good. They have vast experience and lots of history behind them. They did not cut corners in arriving at where they are today. In the process, as well as a public servant learning a required second language, the student is exposed to the realities. Rather than being in a school somewhere with other civil servants, they are in a school with other Canadians. Being in a community away from the Ottawa bubble exposes them to the reality of what is out there. We are into a completely new era with Bill S-3. The public service must recognize that services to the public are a whole new ball game now.
[Translation]
Mr. Baird: I took French at Queen's University. French is not my first language. I met a minister in Paris who told me that, for a francophone, my English was very good. Obviously, he was a good politician.
Senator Robichaud: Witnesses have stressed the importance of promoting French in minority settings. In your report, you say that supervisors, upper management, at various levels, must show more leadership by creating a workplace environment that would promote linguistic duality on a daily basis and encourage employees to use the official language of their choice. How can we do this?
Mr. Baird: First, with leadership. When I was sworn in at Rideau Hall, I asked to take the oath in both English and French. Many of my colleagues did likewise. It is important to be proactive in the public service.
Ms. Boudrias: I want to share with you an extremely positive experience that occurred in Moncton with a group of employees from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The employees, along with the organization's management team, were recognized last week during National Public Service Week, for having implemented the initiative known as French Wednesdays.
This is an opportunity for English speakers to practice their French and vice-versa to ensure an exchange between both linguistic communities. It is particularly beneficial for people returning from language training who, without the opportunity to practice, will lose the second language they have learned. It is good for job maintenance.
Every year, initiatives such as this are recognized across Canada. In Western Canada, last year, a group from Alberta and Manitoba also won an award for their workplace initiative to promote the second language. These are examples of people taking the initiative. An individual from Toronto was also recognized for implementing a kind of Toast Master initiative, both for francophones and anglophones. This kind of model and leadership, shown both by the leadership of the organization and by the employees, ensure that the workplace is more conducive to both official languages.
They are not mandatory initiatives. In mandatory initiatives, the employee has the choice and the right to be supervised in French, to have his or her performance evaluated in French or English, depending of the language of work. I think that more and more we are seeing models of good behavior and that is really what will lead to cultural change in the organizations.
Senator Robichaud: Does Ms. Monnet have something to add?
Ms. Monnet: Those are excellent examples. I can add that we have a network, assistant deputy ministers, and champions to help us in that task. The champions play a leadership role, which sets an example within their institutions, which fosters and encourages such projects. So we try to have a multiplying effect through our efforts, and our champions and official languages directors are helping us enormously in that respect.
The basic message that we are trying to get across in the public service is that speaking to someone else in his or her own language is acknowledging that person's origins. It is a sign of respect and it is very important. We think that that will have an impact on the use of the other language as well.
Mr. Baird: My problem is that for a long time, francophones have been trying to speak to me in English, and I need more experience. At Treasury Board, I always urge employees who can to speak to me in French.
Senator Robichaud: I agree. We are very accommodating. Perhaps a bit too much so. With respect to the language of work, could you give me examples here in the national capital region of branches within the department where French is the language of work?
Ms. Monnet: Yes. Our branch. And I think that Mr. Marc Tremblay from the Department of Justice spoke to you a few weeks ago about his unit where French is the language of work.
Senator Robichaud: So you were expecting my question?
Ms. Monnet: Yes, I read the appearance notes on the weekend. So yes, there are places where French is the language of work; not as many as we would like to see, but there are some.
Ms. Boudrias: Obviously, at the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada, both official languages are encouraged. It is a fact that we try to recommend that our employees work in the language of their choice. In terms of support, that means that we must ensure that our employees have quick access to translation services and that those services are offered locally, in our organizations, in case employees for example need to organize an information meeting in French for the minister within a very tight time frame.
All of that has to be taken into account when you say that you are going to promote language of work and allow employees to work in the language of their choice. There are tools that we must make sure that we have for our employees. In general, if we equip our work places well, we are truly able to give our employees the possibility of working in the language of their choice.
Senator Robichaud: Have you noticed a change in attitude or practice in the preparation of documents? In the past, documents were prepared in English and they were ready immediately, rather than preparing them in French and translating them into English. Has there been a change in that regard?
Ms. Boudrias: I think that there is been a change in the sense that people who have rights are increasingly demanding that our organizations and leaders of the public service respect their linguistic rights. Yes, I think there have been improvements in a number of organizations. Obviously, there are organizations where the language of work is English rather than French and where employees have not necessarily been provided with all the necessary tools, such as electronic translation, which is not a 100 per cent reliable either.
Senator Robichaud: Certainly not!
Ms. Boudrias: We must make sure that our contracts with the Translation Bureau are sufficient. Also, if contracts are given to private companies, we need to make sure that they have a good knowledge of French and meet our expectations and criteria with respect to quality. All of that has to be taken into consideration if we want to provide a workplace that promotes the other language. I am not saying that we have achieved perfection, but I believe that a great deal of progress has been made.
Senator Champagne: I get the impression that working in the language of one's choice is still a bit of a utopia. When you come to a group, it is the language of the majority that dominates at one point, and there is a tendency to want to automatically adopt the language of the majority because things go more quickly.
In your view, is adopting the language of the majority a way to progress more quickly within the federal administration?
Mr. Baird: That is certainly what we saw in both chambers. It was said that a lot of work was done in the federal government as an institution in the past 30 years, but that there was still more work to do.
Ms. Boudrias: I could add that currently, in terms of our recruiting strategies, when people are recruited from outside, young university students, whether they be bilingual or entering career development programs, they are immediately sent for language training.
The more we adopt strategies like that, the fewer meetings we will have where people will not be able to speak the language of their choice. That is what is called passive bilingualism, that is to say, when people speak in the language of their choice while being understood by others. It is quite frequent. Things have changed. At one point in the federal government, English was spoken because there were people who were not able to follow in French. Nowadays, with the language capacity that has been created in the federal government, it is quite common to see meetings where people speak in the language of their choice, where the meeting is not translated and where people understand what is going on.
But efforts still have to be made. Increasing efforts will be made to have people go for language training prior to coming to the federal government or for providing those programs at a young age. It is said that children learn like sponges; the young people that are being recruited for the federal government, who come from universities, who have had a chance to study in immersion programs or other language settings, have that ability and we are currently optimizing that ability.
Senator Champagne: I think it is absolutely extraordinary, and you see it when you meet young people, francophones and anglophones alike. It used to be that young anglophones did not speak French and that young francophones would make an effort to speak English, but it would be a broken English. I really see a change when you see interviews with young English-speaking university students who truly are able to speak a correct French. And I think that if we have set an example, then so much the better.
Will that serve us? We spoke earlier about Vancouver, the Tourism Bureau, there is also talk about the Olympic Games that are coming in 2010 — that is just around the corner.
What has your department set up in order to facilitate, improve services to athletes and the public? It will be a very English-speaking environment, but there will be people from all over the world.
Mr. Baird: I have had the opportunity to meet with the organizers of the Vancouver Olympic Games and they are quite aware of the fact that it is not simply Vancouver's Olympic Games but that Canada of course is the host of those games. They are working with the other regions so that the benefits are felt across Canada. In response to your comment, I am going to follow up on what has been done in the area of official languages because I did not often have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the organizers.
Senator Champagne: We are counting on you to remind the organizers that this is important for Canada's image and for all of us.
Mr. Baird: It is important in the sports world; Toronto lost the Olympic Games to Beijing and our relationship with the Paris team and Toronto was not strong enough to win on the second round.
Senator Champagne: But French is an official language of the Olympic Games, so this is important.
Mr. Baird: This is an international value for Canada and if we continue our efforts, perhaps we might win on the second round next time.
Senator Champagne: Next time.
Mr. Baird: I hope.
[English]
I have a challenge for you and me. We say "bilingualism," however, the communities where I come from speak two languages. We need to promote official languages and have a real sense of who we are as Canadians. We have to talk to people and tell them that they need to speak the official languages. When I tell people they need to be bilingual they say, "What do you mean? We are bilingual." We need to cultivate a culture of official languages.
What are you doing in the federal public service for people who do not speak either of the two official languages? Do you have any special programs that encourages those people whose languages are neither English nor French to learn either or both of the official languages?
Mr. Baird: That is a unique challenge that we face as an employer within the federal public service. The week before my appointment as President of the Treasury Board, there was a front-page story in The Globe and Mail talking about the unique challenges that we face in terms of recruitment. There are many bilingual people in Canada who speak English or French and another language and that is a particular challenge for us. How do we recruit the computer engineer who might be of Indian background who does not speak French? How do you get someone to learn a third language? That is a particular challenge. In many respects, we have made great strides on some employment equity measures and in other respects we have a lot of work to do. That concerns me particularly in large cities like Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver — I could go on and name all of them. In large urban centres, that is a particular challenge because we want the federal public service to resemble the makeup of Canada. Often, a second language is difficult, and a third is even more of a challenge. I cannot say we have adapted anything special since I have arrived.
Mr. Waung: The living requirements of people whose mother tongue is neither official language is a special challenge. Two years ago, we did a study of success rates of those groups and we found there was no difference in the success rates of achieving official languages, no matter where the participant comes from.
Senator Jaffer: I am not concerned about success rates. I have a theory that if you speak a second language, you can learn to speak another. Do you have any specific training for people within the federal service whose mother tongue is neither English nor French?
Ms. Monnet: Senator, there are a number of ongoing projects that address your concerns. One project, under the innovation program developed a program for Cantonese-speaking individuals to teach them French without first teaching them English. We evaluated the result against results using other methods.
Senator Jaffer: Where is that course offered?
Ms. Monnet: That particular course is available in Vancouver. It is under the umbrella of the regional council. I believe that the school had a project for Aboriginal peoples that looked at their specific cultural and linguistic needs learning a second official language. We have done a lot of research, as Mr. Waung mentioned, to try to see if there is an increased difficulty for them. To date, we have not really found any specific problems. The problem that is underlined to us is the access to the training. If we can get the people to the training facility, they will do the learning.
Senator Jaffer: I come from British Columbia, and I believe there should be real mobility in the public service between Ottawa, Vancouver and Toronto. However, what I hear from public servants is they do not have access to French language training in Vancouver as they have it here in Ottawa. The language training provided in Ottawa is very different from language training provided in Vancouver.
You may not have the answer today, minister, and I accept that. However, I would like to know exactly how much training money is spent in training British Columbian public servants and how much you spend elsewhere. I know there is a great problem in British Columbia concerning second language training. That is not acceptable. French should be provided to all public servants across the country. There should be a culture that those two languages are a must.
Mr. Baird: We will take that under advisement. If we can get back to you with specific figures, we will do our best.
Senator Jaffer: With the chairman's permission, I would ask you to provide that information to the chairman. Once we receive that information from you there may be other questions. Perhaps I can, through the chair, direct them to you. Training should really be provided across the country.
What are the waiting lists like? How bad are they? Are they longer in other provinces — you can see where my bias is — than in Ontario?
Mr. Baird: The waiting lists are not unsubstantial. They are there. It is one of the issues that we are confronting. They did not develop overnight and they will not disappear overnight.
I would like to look at our successes. The terrible thing is if you take someone out of the workplace for a year or two and are paying them, and the cost of the training, is it effective. Can they come back and be functionally bilingual? Are they using their new language? Being a member from Ottawa has its advantages and disadvantages. Being President of the Treasury Board, I get a lot of advice at the supermarket or at various community events. I want to ensure that, if we are to make that substantial investment, there will be the opportunity for it to be used. If an employee plans to leave the public service in two years, it does not make much sense to train that employee for a year or two. This goes to Senator Champagne's comment about young people. If we can get those young dynamic people, whether a scientist at Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or a computer engineer, or a policy or communications person here in Ottawa, and get them trained early, the advantage is that we get up to 20 times the pay back because they can make the contribution over many more years.
Senator Jaffer: I respect that you are new at your job, but are there any specific measures that you are looking at in shortening the waiting lists?
Mr. Baird: It is one of the challenges we have to face, as the previous government faced. We will have to put it against health care, the environment, law enforcement, and so on.
Senator Jaffer: The unity of our country is most important.
Mr. Baird: Health care is important to Canadians as well; so is safe communities; so is a clean environment.
Senator Jaffer: May I ask that you provide us with what exactly are the waiting lists, if you have that information, so we have an idea?
Mr. Baird: If we have it, we will get it off to you.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: You are doing very well with your French, Minister. I would say it has improved since the last time I met you. Ms. Boudrias, I would like to congratulate New Brunswick for its Mercredis en français. I would like to see Mercredis en français on Parliament Hill as well: the caucus meetings would become interesting.
I would like to take advantage of your appearance before the committee today, Minister, to get some clarification about Bill S-3, passed last November. The act requires federal institutions to take positive steps and it may also establish regulations.
Has the government already drafted regulations regarding the implementation of the federal obligations with respect to Part VII? What criteria may be contained in these regulations?
Mr. Baird: I will ask Ms. Monnet to answer that question.
[English]
Ms. Monnet: The Official Languages Act gives the responsibility for regulation to the President of the Treasury Board.
[Translation]
This responsibility may be delegated and we will definitely be working on this in cooperation with the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is responsible for Part VII.
Mr. Baird: And of course, in cooperation as well with Ms. Josée Verner, the Minister responsible for Official Languages.
Senator Losier-Cool: You were in Prince Edward Island in May, Minister, and you said at a press conference that in the next few weeks you would be establishing a task force to study the funding of organizations and the grants and contributions programs.
Can you tell the committee whether this task force has been established and if so, what has been done so far?
Mr. Baird: I believe my colleague went to Prince Edward Island. Actually, I have not been there for several years.
Senator Losier-Cool: An article in the Voix acadienne says, and I quote:
At a press conference, Treasury Board President John Baird said that within a few weeks he would be setting up a task force to study the funding of organizations and grants and contribution programs. This is important for groups that receive public funds.
Mr. Baird: Yes, I apologize. I made that announcement in Ottawa.
Senator Losier-Cool: Exactly. The newspaper was reporting on your announcement. I apologize.
Mr. Baird: We announced that a task force will be studying not only the grants and contributions for official languages, but also the best approaches for not-for-profit organizations and for public servants.
The group will be headed by Ms. Frances Lankin, a former New Democratic minister in Ontario, and now the president of United Way in Toronto. There will also be a former deputy minister from Ottawa and a Montreal businessman. These people will be working with a team of public servants and their objective is to report on grants by the end of the year.
Senator Losier-Cool: I see.
Mr. Baird: If there are any regulations on accountability, we will ensure that they are working properly.
[English]
It is very important to have effective oversight and accountability mechanisms. I talked to the Auditor General and she talked about how one grant recipient got a $5,000 grant and had a 75-page contribution agreement. That is not right for the non-profit group. I cannot believe it would be worth the time of any public servant to monitor 75 pages of terms and conditions. We want to achieve a proper balance. In this regard — and I do not mind saying this publicly — I think the previous government was well-intentioned after the problems at Human Resources Development Canada and with the sponsorship program, and I think there was perhaps too much regulation put onto the programs. I hope this group, which has three people from very different backgrounds, will look at it, come back to us and recommend that we look at what is an effective accountability regime, not what is necessarily the most onerous.
Senator Losier-Cool: You are telling me this group is not necessarily following the obligations from the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Baird: It is looking at everything, but nothing specific with respect to official languages.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: In light of the amendments to the Official Language Act under Bill S-3, officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage as well as the Minister of Justice have suggested that it would be up to all federal institutions, the courts and legal experts to define what is meant by positive measures.
How do your department and the agencies that report to you define positive measures?
Mr. Baird: Bill S-3 was passed by the two chambers a few months ago and it is something new.
Ms. Monnet: I think that so far there is no clear definition that we can offer to the department. However, for the time being it is clear that each institution is required to study its initiatives regarding programs and policies and to ensure that they have a positive impact on the communities, that is there is an opportunity to do something for the community.
However, the agency does not have a definition of "positive measures."
Mr. Baird: Because this is something new.
Senator Tardif: What role could the official languages communities play in defining positive measures?
Ms. Monnet: If an institution takes the initiative there will be an impact on the community. We will consult with the community in question and define in a more practical way what the community wants and what we can do to assist it.
This will be a very down-to-earth practical approach based on the institution, the community and the initiative in question. There has to be a dialogue between the institution and the communities to promote understanding and action that will favour the future of the minority communities.
Senator Tardif: The Commissioner of Official Languages made some suggestions with respect to positive measures. Do you agree with her suggestions?
Mr. Baird: I received the report of the Official Languages Commissioner two or three weeks ago and I met with the commissioner just two or three times.
Senator Robichaud: You said that in order to define positives measures, there will have to be a dialogue. When is this going to start?
Ms. Monnet: I think a discussion is already underway depending on the institution and the initiatives. There are discussions between the community and the government in the context of the action plan on official languages twice a year, once with officials, and once with ministers.
In addition, Service Canada is working closely with the communities to define and understand their service requirements. There are all sorts of initiatives that are dependent on the action of institutions.
Senator Robichaud: But we have still not managed to define "positive measures"?
Ms. Monnet: I think it depends on the context. We have to look at the context, what the community in question wants, possible initiatives and what we can do in very practical terms.
Mr. Baird: I should add that during the election campaign, the Prime Minister stressed the fact that his government's highest priority was the Accountability Act. As the minister responsible for this file I have worked very hard on this over the last four and a half months, together with financial obligations such as the Governor General's Awards, the main estimates and financial bills in the House of Commons. We were a new government and since the priorities were in place, we had much more time to work on the other files.
I must emphasize that the federal government's obligations to protect and promote official languages have existed for long time. The act became part of the Constitution 25 years ago, so these obligations have been in place for much longer than Bill S-3 has been around.
Senator Robichaud: But what happened before, happened before. We are asking you what you are doing to define positive measures. That is all.
Mr. Baird: When I was a provincial minister, I was pleased with the creation of 12 French school boards in each region of Ontario. And for the first time in the history of Ontario, there was equity in funding for education. That was something very important.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you and your staff for being here today, minister.
The committee adjourned.